Terry Kath vs. Jimi Hendrix
 

I know this thread will stir up controversy, but Gardo got me thinking. Jimi himself told Terry that he thought Terry was a better guitar player than himself and I believe that to be true. I have just spent the last couple of hours listening to the first 3 Chicago albums and I must say that guy was amazing - he had the blues down pat and he was a lot more fluid and melodic than Jimi ever could be - but the bottom line was that he had a hell of a lot of SOUL, just like Jimi, but I truly believe he was the better player, hands down. Don't get me wrong - I love Jimi, but I think Terry doesn't get half the recognition that he should as one of the Top 5 greatest rock guitarists that ever lived.

Terry Kath was a better guitarist than he was ever given credit for, true enough. But he was no Jimi Hendrix. Jimi went beyond guitar brilliance: his songwriting alone would have made him one of the greats of any era, and we have all the proof before us. Had Terry been in a different band--say, one not as commercially compromised as Chicago was/is--he'd have been better off(imagine Stevie Ray Vaughan in Chicago; the same kind of waste, I believe).

Might as well state here that the very notion Chicago should be in the R&R Hall of Fame is ludicrous. Occasional rockers aside, Chicago was a blatant pop act with a tinge of jazz and lots of pretension. I like some of their stuff, make no mistake, but you don't put them anywhere near the Big Boys. Of course I feel that way about Bobby Darin and Bill Haley: like 'em a lot, but they're not deserving of that kind of adulation. Just my opinion. Putting Chicago in would be as pointless as suggesting Brenda Lee, who rocked in hear earliest years but at heart was a pop and country singer, as it turne dout.

Love the thread concept, though, should be interesting to watch before it gets Gorted:D ;)

ED:cool:

Jimi was a humble man for sure ;)

It all depends on what kind of music you like and listen to. I sometimes think Jimi can be overrated, just like Clapton (that's another story), but that being said, I think that he is totally unique, one-of-a-kind, and the best psychedelic blues guitarist of all time.

Wouldn't Segovia admire the stylings of another musician??

Competitions between musicians exist only in the eye of the fan. There isn't a fine musician that cannot mention a name he STRIVES to be as good as. I never cared for Van Halen or Black Sabbath, but I can easily see what Eddie and Tommy "brought to the table".

And that's what is all about when comparing first rate musicians - not who is "better", but the unique entree they serve. If Chuck Berry isn't a master string bender - why did so many imitate him? It was a new entree, with some familiar ingredients.

You're only as good as your material...which is why, when we speak of Jimi, Clapton, Stevie Ray, Peter Green, B.B., Keith, Chuck,any great, we're really speaking of his finest songs as much as the performance itself. Kath's curse was probably that he never had enough great material to work with.

ED:cool:

They were both great guitarists in their own way...Style and charisma have much to do with fame and fortune...Jimi was one of a kind and pure soul and so powerful...I love 'em both. :)

I agree that a great guitarist is a great guitarist, regardless of style, but I have to disagree about Chicago - I think that Terry Kath had a great vehicle for his style of playing on the first 6 or 7 albums, which were all great albums, and only after 1975 or so did Chicago fall into the MOR crap pile. Jimi was definitely an innovator unlike anybody else - just one listen to his first 3 records and you know you've never heard anything like that before or since. As far as Clapton goes, I think he is the most overrated guitar player in the history of rock'n'roll. There are dozens of other "blues" guitarists that can blow him away. As the decades wore on and to this day, he is one of the most boring musicians I have ever heard.

Heck,
I blow him away! SUPER OVER rated! I sure agree with ya on that one. It's a popularity contest...Consider this, most people who vote and pick the world's greatest guitarist can't PICK a NOTE! Popularity wins...Talent means little in those polls..and once your a legend..It sticks forever and ever...until the next popular vote.:)

Even James William Guercio said that Terry Kath is a better guitarist than Jimi Hendrix!
Therefore, it must be true.
Issue settled!

Paul;)

Now guys and gals,this brings up a topic that I have been burned over for years about.As much as I like Jimi,he was never the best rock guitarist to ever strap on an axe.Fact is his rep seems to have come from the Monterey Pop gig,all that feedback and tongue biz.The thing that impressed me about him most wasn't his lead guitar work but his rhythm guitar,he sounds like 2 guitars on Killing Floor(from Monterey Pop) and other examples include Little Wing,Castles Made Of Sand.Roy Buchanan for my money was the best of that era even though he was only playing part-time.The things that man could do with fingers and volume controls on his guitar have never been touched.

Agreed - despite they were a polished an talented group, Chicago was no R&R band. Tough to compare Kath with Hendrix - styles were completely different. Jimi was indisputably one of the greatest rock guitarists of his time, much as James Burton was THE GREATEST for the rock styles of the 50's and early 60's.

By the way, Ed, why do you worry about Gorts so much? It's very seldom they have to intervene, considering the number of threads here, and I doubt this thread will get to that point...

Next up: Herman's Hermits vs. The Beatles ;) :D

Amen to THAT!

And, FWIW, Terry Kath was amazing! he was really on the same playing field as Hendrix. As far as him being better is concerned, they both played within slightly different atmospheres. Kath had to work within the framework of a large band with a lot of egos. Hendrix was one of the Experience but he was the main man in a trio.

No contest! Wanna go for the Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones?:D

I strongly disagree here. Chicago started out, and tried to maintain their feisty attitude. I think a large part of why they started morphing was because their controlling producer James William Gurecio, and pop-minded Peter Cetera kept them commercial. You also might say success forced them into a box.

Many say it was Cetera who started using the band to set up his solo career with the help of David Foster, but according to ousted drummer Danny Seraphine, HE was the one who brought in Foster and Humberto Gatica in the early 80s. But I guess that team of Cetera/Foster/Gatica was the one that helped put the nail in Chicago's commercial coffin.

Also to blame was the audiences' love for the Cetera-sung ballads. The band couldn't help that! After "If You Leave Me Now" in November 1976, it was all over for the rock/jazz sound that made them superstars.

It's no small irony that when Peter Cetera left Chicago he had two #1 singles right out of the box, had a couple more hits then promptly plummeted into oblivion. Has anyone seen this guy after about 1989? Meanwhile after 35 years together, Chicago seems to just keep going...

There might be a reason a lot of people like him.
 

To any Eric Clapton doubters may I suggest a refresher course.John Mayall's Bluesbreakers.His first solo album w/ Let It Rain.Layla(my favorite rock and roll guitar album).Crossroads 2 1st CD 1974.From The Cradle.Riding With The King has a royal version of Help The Poor.B.B. sounds really good on this one.And if you can find it,E.C. with Johnny Cash and Carl Perkins doing Matchbox on The Johnny Cash Show.Its a gas.I could mention Cream and Blind Faith but I don't want you to think I'm getting carried away. :)

Now Grant..........:laugh:

Re: There might be a reason a lot of people like him.
 

I love the Bluesbreakers and the Cream stuff, I just think from the late 70's on, Clapton got progressively more boring. That "Unplugged" record is a real yawner...