I personally enjoy both, but I prefer Joe Satriani. He's got great composing skills, and is a master of his instrument, more so I think than Hendrix. But as stated before, they're completely different types. Hendrix is extremely raw and wild, and Satch is "Strange Beautiful Music" For those who haven't heard Satch yet, I recommend checking out Surfing With The Alien.
I don't understand why people prefer Hendrix over Satriani... I think Joe is more amazing than Hendrix but to each his own I guess.
There are constantly best guitarist polls where guitarists are rank by the best of the best guitar players and Hendrix wins constantly. Check out guitar player magazine.
There are constantly best guitarist polls where guitarists are rank by the best of the best guitar players and Hendrix wins constantly. Check out guitar player magazine. Some of his performances were sloppy and he wasn't a particularly fast player especially by todays heavy metal standards. What he really excelled at was innovation and song writing. He was one of the first to incorporate feedback into his music! This is an important fact, because this seems commonplace now but it just did not happen back then. Jimi opened another door of expression in the instrument. Jimi Hendrix wasn't just the guitar player in a band, he was a complete musician. A singer song writer, performer and as a producer, Hendrix also experimented in the recording studio as another way of expressing his musical ideas. One important thing to note is that Hendrix poured allot of emotion into everything he played. Every note being perfectly was not his concern. It was the song that mattered most.
Yeah, to say that any experienced guitarist would prefer Satriani is insane. All of the musicians of the 60's, from The Beatles to CSN&Y worshiped Hendrix, and I guarantee you they would not dig Satch. Satch is revered by people who value only technical ability - wankers, shredders, people obsessed with their guitar gear... trust me, I've been around many kinds of musicians at all levels, and the vast majority of people who worship someone like Satch are approaching music from the wrong angle. And Hendrix WAS fast and technically brilliant... no one has ever made it wail like Jimi. Sure he was sloppy sometimes, but he WANTED to be sloppy because sloppy is good sometimes... that's where people like Eric Johnson get it wrong. Their playing is completely mechical... Jimi Hendrix would blow Satch away in a guitar duel. Satch would just sit there noodling while Hendrix would channel the demons of long dead warlords who were killed at the hands of a rusty battle axe through his guitar. Heck, even someone like Albert King or Clapton could smoke Satch. Obviously not based on speed, but based on taste and overall skill at playing the right notes at the right time.
Why is this even a question? Joe Satriani versus Steve Vai or something I could see. Or maybe Hendrix vs. Page, but Satriani vs. Hendrix just isn't fair. Maybe this isn't the place for a sports metaphor, but this poll is like asking who would win a football game between the NY Giants and USC.
jimi is great, very creative. but joe has more technical talent and skill. i personally like hendrix. even thought satriani might be more talented as a musician, jimi is a more talented artist..
the only way to make a comparison here is to compare the works. Not just what we all feel we know. Get axis bold as love and surfing with the alien out. Listen back to back. There's not even a contest here, really. Sure Joe sweats the guitar and nasty licks. Jimi breathes it.
Hendix is an original and Satriani is an imitator, so to me ,there is no real comparison. I don't care how good "technically", satriani is, he just doesn't have the realness or bring the excitement that Hendrix could.
All it is is the fact that he looked up to Jimi, gaining his ability and further taking the skill. I can't deny who is better.