| Author | Message | ||
  GO_GET_GONE_GIRL (gogogirl) 4-Laureate Username: gogogirl Post Number: 78 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 63.158.252.201 |
Greetings All, I found this article interesting. I also find this question interesting. Because even if a person plays a guitar out of this world - is a poet - writer - great communicator - and some 'moe stuff - that doesn't neccesarily make him into a genius does it? What did Jimi offer up to a generation and generations since. I could go on about him - because I was very aware of who he was - when he was shining. I loved the fact that he could play the guitar frontwards and backwards and with his teeth. I loved his music - and especially - "Purple Haze." It is just so sad that he had to "Touch the sky", too soon. What do you all think about Jimi "The Guitar Was Just Another Extension Of Me" Hendrix? http://www.strike-the-root.com /4/herman/herman24.html | ||
GOAT (goat) 4-Laureate Username: goat Post Number: 77 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.228.130.97 |
Definitely an innovator to guitar playing. Though playing behind the back and with his teeth was a rip off of another great blues/jazz guitar player. Jimi Hendrix still mad leaps and bounds with the idea of new ways to play the guitar. | ||
zaya (isaiah) 3-Pundit Username: isaiah Post Number: 32 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 134.74.44.245 |
Goat, I think "rip-off" is an inappropriate term to describe what Hendrix did, and not because I think so highly of him - which I do... He was merely imitating a performance style he, as well as, thousands of blues players before him, had seen over the years... Of course, if we are seeing it for the first time, we think it is absolutely stunnning and sensational... Later, when we find out it was nothing new, we say it was a rip-off, and no big deal... Well, Geoge Mikan probably did the first dunk in basketball, but doesn't mean it's no big thing to see Jordan dunking - and Jordan' DID rip offs of Dr. J's and Connie Hawkins moves left and right...(smile!) But we will not insult Jordan - or Jimi's - legacy by referring to what they did as "rip-offs..."(smile!) Peace! Isaiah | ||
Moe (moe) 4-Laureate Username: moe Post Number: 103 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.140.73.100 |
Didn't Jimi Hendrix once play with The Isley Brothers under a different name? | ||
GO_GET_GONE_GIRL (gogogirl) 4-Laureate Username: gogogirl Post Number: 79 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 63.158.252.201 |
Hey All, Yea Moe. Listen to him. You have to wait a minute or so before the music starts. By the way - at the end of the article above - click on - "Jimi Hendrix Biography", and then on that site - click on links and - "The Jimi Hendrix Black Exp.", is the Soul-Patrol link. Many wonderful links there, indeed. I love the song - "Watchtower", and loved hearing it in the movie "A Bronx Tale." It was just sooooooo timely. LOL! Check the Isley Brothers out - Testifying and what not. http://www.soul-patrol.com/fun k/testify.htm | ||
Sudi Kamau (sudi_kamau) 3-Pundit Username: sudi_kamau Post Number: 55 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 66.117.198.35 |
If we talk about the genius of Louis Armstrong, we can get into things like a discussion of "swing" and how he affected that. We can talk about his phrasing and how he constructed solos, and how in many ways his approach was ground breaking. If we talk about the genius of Charlie Parker, we can cite his introduction of sophisticated phrasing and use of upper chord extensions. Or we might talk about his and his contemporaries' infusion of velocity technique into jazz improvisation. Then there's his ability to expand the technical vocabulary of Jazz while showing the requisite mastery of the blues, retaining a solid connection to the song form, and using theory and technique to enhance expression rather than as a substitute for it. If we talk about Stevie Wonder as a genius, we might talk about his prolific output, combined with his ability to channel eclectic musical influences into an authentic R&B product. We might also talk about his effective and often unorthodox manipulation of harmonic and timbral effects, technology and lyrical content to set moods and produce vivid imagery. What are the observable characterstics that we would look for in Jimmie Hendrix to understand his genius? | ||
Lynn Bruce (lynn_bruce) 2-Debutant Username: lynn_bruce Post Number: 30 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.41.119.244 |
Damn,sometimes we should leave all the "what was he trying to say" shit at the door and sit back,twist up,or open that beer,listen to the music and say this--- 'DAMN,THAT MO Fo CAN PLAY HIS ASS OFF"--cause most musicians that aren't reading charts are just playing what comes out when it's solo time. It's not that complicated,it just takes years and years of practice and natural talent. | ||
Tony Russi (tony_russi) 4-Laureate Username: tony_russi Post Number: 118 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.210.26.31 |
I'm pretty sure that Jimi Hendrix was in Little Richards band at one point, but I don't know if that was before his stint with the Isleys or after.He learned alot about stage pressence ect from both of those gigs. | ||
Galactus (galactus) 3-Pundit Username: galactus Post Number: 38 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 207.144.253.114 |
I tend to agree with Sudi's comments. I love Hendrix's stuff and have just about all of his recordings and albums......but I don't rank him up there with guys like Mayfield (whose chords and style Hendrix emulated) and Ellington and Marley and so forth........ I agree with the notion he was a great guitar player......and leave it at that. I'm not sure he lived long enough to become a "genius." Perhaps he would've ......but we'll, sadly, never know. I do know he had developed an association with Miles Davis towards the end....and was seriously contemplating studying jazz and learning to read music. He might've gone in that direction....or maybe he would've wound up in the P-Funk/Clinton nation. Who knows? I studied guitar for a few years and my instructor and I deciphered many a Hendrix tune ("Little Wing" is something else)......It's amazing stuff, no doubt..... But "genius"? That's a label rock fans love to give him.....but coming at it from soul/r&b persepctive, I'm not so sure. One wonders how many "geniuses" rock fans would discover.....if they ever chose to delve a little deeper and discover where the true roots of the music they claim to love so much originated. (Message edited by galactus on May 19, 2004) | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 285 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 80.14.145.76 |
If Jimi is not a genius then I think you ought to cancel this word from the dictionary... Cos' if he ain't, who is? What he did in just over three years, most artists can't do in a lifetime... what he would have done after is left to imagination... unfortunately. I don't care about playing in the back or with the teeth... yes it was fun but that was just stage antics... what he did in the studio, his compositions, his body of work, this is what Jimi should be judged upon. He did work with Little Richard before the Isleys, he did work with Curtis Knight and lots of others, but what he accomplished had matured like good wine and came together at the right time after his moving to England. I think the question itself is pointless (excuse me for saying that) because why then would he still be revered the world over 34 years after his death... why would he be studied, why would there be so many tribute albums (the latest being just out on the market with Prince and sevral other artists), why would his name be so high in the pantheon of not only guitar players, but just every artist? Comparing his playing with Curtis Mayfield's is baffling me... Curtis had a style of his own alright, but Jimi could play anything, from the blues (Red House) to outright rock (Johnny B Goode), to funk (Dolly Dagger) to just Jimi Hendrix (Hey Baby New Rising Sun)... Curtis Mayfield is a legend in his own right but I can't see the point in comparing people who played such different music styles... that's like apple to oranges to me (and I love them both) Jimi is not just a guitar hero, he's a whole package... The first record I ever bought (I was 9) was a Jimi Hendrix record (much to my parent's surprise because they didn't know who he was... they were soon horrified when I played it for the first time! LOL) That was back in 67 and although my musical tastes have evolved in many ways, I still play Jimi's records with the same pleasure. Sudi Kamau, after citing some great names in music you wonder what could possibly allow Jimi's name to be in the same league. Have you listened to Jimi's records is my question. No one had ever played guitar like him before, and since no one has ever played guitar like him since, you could say that he didn't teach much... or maybe it could be because his playing is so recognizable that anybody who would dare to try pick up stuff from him would immediately be branded a copycat. Remember Robin Trower in the 70's (who was announced as his white heir!? LOL) What about Prince who seems to have carefully studied Jimi's stage presence, AND guitar playing... and Lenny Krawitz too by the way. There was a fantastic exposition last year in Paris at the huge Cit� de la Musique in partnership with Jimi's museum in Seattle and it was interesting to read the comments left by the visitors when they left. People from all over Europe (and beyond) flocked to see the biggest event ever dedicated to this great musician. The thing is, his talent was only blossoming when he disappeared... in almost 4 years I think he expanded guitar playing in ways that have never been visited again since. I think his songwriting too is often left aside... what he did with songs like IF 6 WAS 9, FOXY LADY, BOLD AS LOVE, 1983, STILL RAINING STILL DREAMING, and so many more easily demonstrate this facet of his talent. Galactus, you mentioned he would eventually have learned to read music? What's that got to do with him being a genius? On the contrary... his mind, free from any straight jacket, wandered in directions that perhaps he wouldn't have thought of, if he had be classically trained... Frankly I don't even understand the point in calling him a genius or not... you want to call him just a talented guitar player... if you want. Then he was just THE most talented of them all. I have no problem with that. Genius or not, nobody has topped what he did, nor has created much on this instrument since. Ask Buddy Miles whom I had the pleasure of interviewing and just let him talk about Jimi. Galactus, I have been digging deep and deeper and I have yet to discover a musician who didn't need some roots to play the way he played, and count in those Stevie, Charlie and Louis so reverently named in a previous post. So yes Jimi exploited the roots he grew up with, but took them to a point where he went beyond all barriers and brought a huge stone to the building of modern music. I don't think anyone has been as influential in that regard since his passing, or then name ONE? Wonder B | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 4-Laureate Username: douglasm Post Number: 74 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
I've got to both agree and disagree. Hendrix was good, of that there's no question. Innovative? I think so, but I'm not sure. Loud he definately was. But in looking (or hearing) the pile of garbage Warner has released after his death, I begin to wonder if he had reached his creative peak by the time he died. I will admit I do have a problem with "flashy" guitar work, tending more towards what I would call the "Neil Young School" of guitar solo, where the guitarist wrings more emotion out of a few notes, as opposed to wringing more noise out of alot of them. An excellent songwriter, a techinically (sp) brilliant guitarist, a great showperson, but creative genius? Kinda, sorta, I think so maybe. | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 288 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 80.14.145.76 |
douglasm, listen to "Hey Baby New Rising Sun" from the Rainbow Bridge soundtrack, if you think Jimi was only flashy and loud... or "If 6 Was 9" That was the way of the times but surely he could do something else... And I say he SURELY hadn't reached his full potential before his death... the last music he did (not the substandard music which was never meant to be released but which was after his death) showed Jimi veering towards a different style... different sound, perhaps more 'soulful'... Wonder B | ||
Rich (richk) 2-Debutant Username: richk Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
I'm no Jimi Hendrix expert and not a real fan of flashy guitar playing, but DAGGONE, as Wonder B said, if he wasn't a musical genius, then there's no such thing. He was an incredible songwriter for sure Jimi may have even been at a creative peak when he died, as he was getting back to the Funk. Other than "Little Wing" and a few others, IMHO Jimi's best work was cut in 1970. Power of Soul - Filmore East Machine Gun - Filmore East Who Knows - Filmore East Freedom - First Rays Night Bird Flying - First Rays Angel - First Rays Ezy Rider - First Rays Drifting - First Rays Hey Baby (New Rising Sun) - First Rays | ||
Larry (larry) 3-Pundit Username: larry Post Number: 47 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 216.23.183.2 |
I was so taken by the article from the Link provided by (Gogogirl). I'd suggest if you want to talk on Jimi it should be required reading...along with Lynn's idea. Thrown on Band of Gypsie's and tell me you've heard that vibe before or since. Uh-uh. That was Jimi. NOONE sounded like him except the gobs of folks who tried to... Great Article. Gotta post that link again: http://www.strike-the-root.com /4/herman/herman24.html | ||
Destruction (destruction) 2-Debutant Username: destruction Post Number: 15 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 69.139.236.125 |
I harken back to Anthony Jackson's comments on SITSOM about Jamerson when he described why he felt Jamerson was a musical genius. If Jamerson was a genius then so was Hendrix | ||
GOAT (goat) 4-Laureate Username: goat Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.228.147.20 |
Zaya. I didn't mean "rip-off" in the sense. I meant that he copied some other cats performing antics. No harm meant ;) Wonder B. Could you elaborate on Hendrix moving to more of a "soul" sound? And where I can find this at? I am quite interested to see and compare where he was going. Thanks. | ||
Larry (larry) 3-Pundit Username: larry Post Number: 48 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 67.101.87.217 |
Destruction, If I had 1 genius cap and Jamerson & Hendrix were standing there (why do I setup these scenarios?)JJ would get that cap! Both were gooey (yeah, that's my term du thread), natural players, but, Jamerson had such an abundance of ideas. To play through one song w/o repeating yourself (I'm talking every bar in the tune) is one thing, to do it on a hundred songs? His stamina and fertile mind is just insane. Jimi (G-d bless him!) had sounds and distortion and bends and pull-offs he could riff endlessly on. JJ (bass players in general) don't have that luxury. Gogogirl asked such a subjective question. Seems we all have some genius in us.... From Websters online: http://www.webster-dictionary. org/definition/genius Gen�ius n. 1. A good or evil spirit, or demon, supposed by the ancients to preside over a man's destiny in life; a tutelary deity; a supernatural being; a spirit, good or bad. Cf. Jinnee. The unseen genius of the wood. - Milton. We talk of genius still, but with thought how changed! The genius of Augustus was a tutelary demon, to be sworn by and to receive offerings on an altar as a deity. - Tylor. 2. The peculiar structure of mind with which each individual is endowed by nature; that disposition or aptitude of mind which is peculiar to each man, and which qualifies him for certain kinds of action or special success in any pursuit; special taste, inclination, or disposition; as, a genius for history, for poetry, or painting. 3. Peculiar character; animating spirit, as of a nation, a religion, a language. 4. Distinguished mental superiority; uncommon intellectual power; especially, superior power of invention or origination of any kind, or of forming new combinations; as, a man of genius. Genius of the highest kind implies an unusual intensity of the modifying power. - Coleridge. 5. A man endowed with uncommon vigor of mind; a man of superior intellectual faculties and creativity; as, Shakespeare was a rare genius.Genius loci the genius or presiding divinity of a place; hence, the pervading spirit of a place or institution, as of a college, etc. | ||
Sudi Kamau (sudi_kamau) 3-Pundit Username: sudi_kamau Post Number: 56 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
You don't have to know or care about upper extensions to appreciate Charlie Parker, but if you do, you have another piece of insight into what made him great. My everyday reaction to a performer may be, "Man, that cat is a bad ass!" But, I don't think it's a crime to be able to offer some kind of explanation as to why I think he's a bad ass if pressed. I also don't think it's a crime to ask. The fact is that most musicians that I really get into, who aren't reading a chart, actually know what they're playing and why and have a lot of control over their effects no matter how abandoned they get. So, you know, I'm sorry that somebody is upset about the whole analytical tone, but some people are like that. I've heard Hendrix but was never into the whole genre, so I'm not trying to say one way or the other what he was. But, someone else posed the question of whether the "genius" label would apply. Aside from the debate over whether the label means anything in the first place, the question makes me wonder what yardstick one would use to decide. I gave the examples I gave to illustrate that even though enjoyment of an artist might not be an analytical process, there are some concrete points that can be made about what accounts for various artists' reputation for genius. | ||
Gil (gil) 1-Arriviste Username: gil Post Number: 9 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 192.44.136.113 |
Hendrix was the Isley's touring guitarist for awhile. He went by "Jimmy James", if I'm not mistaken. | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 291 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.50.20.253 |
Larry , good thing you posted the definition because being French I don't have that dictionnary LOL! It sure helps a lot! Sudi Kamau, my apologies if you thought that my post in reply aimed at you one bit... It's always hard to know what one's thinking when he is posting something, so misinterpretations can occur... You said "I don't think it's a crime to be able to offer some kind of explanation as to why I think he's a bad ass if pressed. I also don't think it's a crime to ask. " and I am in total agreement with that... As for being in control of one's instrument, I believe that Jimi knew what he was doing (wether he read charts or not) and could do anything his mind set him up to do. One could also say that he had more imagination than most of his fellow guitar players because he explored sounds and techniques unheard of at the time (and to this day some are still wondering how he did some of the stuff he played). Goat I think he was getting back to a more soulful sound with the collaboration with Buddy Miles and by using Billy Cox on bass. If you listen to some tracks on the Rainbow Bridge LP it is obvious (Dolly Dagger for example is on the funk side) the first unofficial album after his death 'Cry Of Love' also shows a new feeling, and if you listen again to 'Crash Landing' the first (before it went overboard) post mortem album with his guitar playing but the rest of the tracks being recorded after he died, then tracks like 'With The Power' or 'Captain Coconut' do show a more soulful side... I am sure you will agree after hearing those. I think he shouldn't be pinhold as just a 'flashy guitar player'... Sure I know a lot of soul fans who can't listent to Jimi's music for over a minute, (I have to be an exception here LOL) and to most, his music is not the most easily 'listenable' artist... I gotta give you that. It requires a little obstination when you come from another musical world... just like me with Charlie Parker LOL Being a musical geniues doesn't always mean that everybody will like your music... Frank Zappa is considered close to a genius (I am being cautious here LOL) and yet I have never been able to get into his stuff... Wonder B | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 292 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.50.20.253 |
Here's a couple of pics... Jimi with Wilson Pickett...  Jimi in action! LOok at the guy holding the amplifier...  Relaxing...  Wonder B | ||
bluerhythmbass (bluerhythmbass) 2-Debutant Username: bluerhythmbass Post Number: 12 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 192.55.140.2 |
From a musical perspective - Jimi's music was mostly blues based in style & chord progressions. To refer to his music as just rock & roll is dead wrong. He even said that he plays the blues in an old Rolling Stone interview. As far as being labeled a genius, he was a genius in the way he used his guitar and made it "cry" and his creativity. He obviously wasn't a genius intellectually or he would be with us today.....IMO | ||
douglasm (douglasm) 4-Laureate Username: douglasm Post Number: 75 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.113.12.67 |
Wonder B.... ....alot of the discussion gets based around what you like, and I can't deny there's much good Hendrix music out there. It's just that alot of Hendrix's stuff impresses me as being so much noise, and if he influenced guitarists, the influence was corupted into the thought that technical brillance can replace substance. Living in the Pacific Northwest, one is innundated with the Hendrix cult. Randy Hansen has made a career out of playing Hendrix music, and Paul Allen has made a museum (Experience Music Project). If he'd just spend that much money on the Seahawks..... I do want to complement you fine folks on not draging out "Hey Joe" as an example of Hendrix's genius. Tim Rose's slow version was better....and first. | ||
Sudi Kamau (sudi_kamau) 3-Pundit Username: sudi_kamau Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 66.117.198.35 |
Actually, Wonder, I thought that yours was a fair challenge - "Have you listened to Jimi's records is my question." As you stated, "[b]eing a musical geniues doesn't always mean that everybody will like your music." Hendrix operated in a genre that has never been my cup of tea, so although I heard him, I can't pretend to have spent enough time listening to him to honestly say that I have an appreciation for his work positively or negatively. Taste and appreciation are two different things. I like the sound of Indian Tabla in small doses, but I don't know a damned thing about it - there are some practices and issues that a person with a working knowledge of Tabla understands that I am in the dark about. I don't care for Rock for some specific reasons that I won't elaborate on, but I can appreciate some of the things I've heard from some Rock acts. I like Cuban Son and I have developed some ability to appreciate what's going on with it. With that in mind, my initial question was geared toward eliciting some remarks that would serve as guide posts for a person from a different musical world than Hendrix's. The shortness in my response was directed elsewhere. | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 418 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.236.22.200 |
I know that to most of you , what I am about to say will sound like sacrilage, but as a guitarist, I for one was not influenced at all by Hendrix, nor do I care for that style of playing. Imo, he was all flash and no substance and just a bunch of feedback, fuzz and other noise and for the life of me, other that his image I dont know what all the hoopla was and is about. | ||
ralph (ralph) Moderator Username: ralph Post Number: 235 Registered: 3-2004 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
Bobby, I'm kind of in the same camp as you. I guess what suprises me is this is coming from a guitar player. Back when Hendrix was hot, it seemed to me all the guitar players were gushing about the guy. I used to think that maybe because I was a keyboard guy, I just didn't get him, which for the most part, I never really did. Geez Bobby, I'm sure they're going to hang us at dawn. | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 423 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.236.22.200 |
Do I hear strains of the theme from "Fist full of dollars" in the background? Hey, what can I tell ya? The guy never did it for me. He may have been great to some people, but for me, what he did did not constitute greatness. Take away his image and his "schtick" and you have just another average blues guitarist. Sorry! | ||
willy (willy) 1-Arriviste Username: willy Post Number: 2 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 209.114.224.106 |
I think a lot of you are missing the point, yeah his music is subject to the listeners likes or dislikes, but when you look at the overall picture, musicians are still trying to catch up to what Hendrix did. You have to remember before Jimi nobody had ever done the feedback thing before. Also nobody had ever mixed psychedelic pop and the blues. Hendrix effectively killed off the garage band scene when those musicians saw what could be accomplished. Yes he did the old blues and soul tricks, and yes he did tour with all the old soul cats, but he was able to exact all the influences from the various types of music and make his own music. In this day of the generic popstar, you have to look at Jimi and be amazed at what he did 35 years ago and see that people are still copying it and still hold it up as the standard. | ||
Steve (steve_litos) 2-Debutant Username: steve_litos Post Number: 17 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 209.100.86.4 |
I personally think the themes from "For A Few Dollars More" or "Good, Bad, & the Ugly" were a bit more memorable...I do think that Hendrix was very talented when you take away his "schtick". Most of the stuff he did on stage was "giving the people what they want" & showboating. I do think in the confines of the studio he was very creative & produced some thrilling tracks. I really think his best overall work is "Axis: Bold As Love" & that he was heading towards a more streamlined sound when he died. | ||
GOAT (goat) 4-Laureate Username: goat Post Number: 85 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.228.129.190 |
Thanks Wonder B. I will have to take another listen to those. | ||
Galactus (galactus) 3-Pundit Username: galactus Post Number: 41 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 207.144.253.114 |
Wonder, Don't get me wrong.....I respect what Hendrix did....and I enjoy his albums. My basic point was this: HE DIDN'T LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE A FAIR JUDGEMENT. That was my point about "reading music." I was complimenting Hendrix on his desire to study with Davis and learn music......thusly giving himself a chance to to progress and evolve even further.... I actually like Hendrix' later material more, anyway....when he was moving more towards a jazzy sound and into funk. So he was still progressing......It's difficult for me to label him a "genius" because he was still in flux when he passed away...... though I can certainly understand where a serious student of rock music would think that way. From a pure r&b, soul, jazz or blues perspective, though (as someone like Bobby is, above), I'm not so sure the "genius" label applies. It's a subjective term, anyway.......and just depends on what your interests are...... | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 425 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.236.22.200 |
Einstein was a genius da Vinci was a genius Edison was a genius Carver was a genius Bell was a genius Gallileo was a genius Pasteur was a genius These are the type of people whom I consider to have been labeled a genius. Not Hendrix. | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 295 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 81.249.168.165 |
Bobby, all the people you mention are intellectual geniuses... so there are different definitons of geniuses... Cos all are not intellectual! LOL In music Mozart is considered a genius even by people with no roots in classical music... am I wrong? Then there are all kinds of geniuses... people who took their craft a significant step forward, who invented things nobody had ever thought about before... Michelangelo was a painting genius... I am sure there are (were) genius carpenters, as there were genius in all kinds of art... so why not a genius on an instrument (Paganini was one on violin) Galactus, I understand your point of view... Like I said before the only thing I have to answer is that even though he died too soon for us to have a fair image of what he could have done, what he did in the short laps of time he was with us is mind boggling. In music perhaps you have to be receptive to the kind of music the person is playing to fully appreciate what he brings to the table... perhaps Ralph is in that position, because he could not get into this music... Like I can't get into a lot of other music form no matter how hard I try (I have a total rejection for Opera for example... I have tried, having a classical formation on the flute, but I have yet to succeed) Some stuff music touches you deep within, some don't... The guy could be the greatest and you would like one note he sings or plays... In Soul music, many people worship Smokey Robinson, I have yet to find (although I like some songs) the same passion for his singing... too light for me... I absolutely worship Levi Stubbs and perhpas some people don't get it... Larry Graham is considered the pioneer of the slap technique on electric bass and some people into soul and funk hate slapping... Taste is a factor in the way we judge music, so we can't really be objective on the subject. That's why I do not consider Bobby's view on Jimi sacrilege... Sudi Kamau thanks for explaining your initial post... I like tabla too but I can't get into 'cuban son' (and my wife is crazy about it so I am exposed to it on a daily basis LOL) Bluerythmbass you said 'He obviously wasn't a genius intellectually or he would be with us today.....IMO' I have to say then that hundreds of musicians have to be put in the same bag as Jimi then (think Marvin Gaye, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Lady Day etc etc)... and hundreds of great thinkers, writers etc too... cos' addiction touches every part of the society in every part of the world... Those who have escaped unharmed are lucky and those who never tried don't know how lucky they are... Wonder B | ||
Sudi Kamau (sudi_kamau) 3-Pundit Username: sudi_kamau Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 66.117.198.35 |
Eli's comments echo those that I've heard from guitar players in the past. And then there's the whole point of his last post - "genius" is a much overused term. My impression of Hendrix was always that he was a reasonably gifted blues/R&B player who found out he could market himself by pandering to the burgeoning rebelliousness of white adolescents. He played up for the crowd some of the tricks he learned working and used some of the vagaries of faulty equipment to advantage as stage gimmicks. Overdriving cheap amps was nothing new - and making it a "cool" thing has more to do with image and schtick than any great musical achievement. I realize that I'm not a fair appraiser because I've always tended to write Rock off as derivative and less than culturally relevant anyway. But, besides the guitar players I know who pretty much sniff at Hendrix, I know other musicians (although most of them play other instruments) who swear by him. So, I find the debate somewhat interesting, and I thought it only fair that if somebody came up with some substantive reasons to support the idea that Hendrix was a "genius," it would certainly be worth considering. You don't have to know sharps from flats to be able to express in some kind of language what it is that a musician does that makes them great in your eyes. And when you start to try to lay terms like "genius" on a person, I think credibility demands being able to do so. If you say, as willy did, something like nobody ever mixed psychodelic pop with the blues or did the distortion thing before, at least there's something to accept, debate, question or consider. That's a start. | ||
ralph (ralph) Moderator Username: ralph Post Number: 242 Registered: 3-2004 Posted From: 209.240.205.61 |
Just remember the tried and true axiom...In Rock and Roll, death is a good career move. It worked for Jim Morrison and a few others ( Joplin..Cobain) and it worked for Hendrix. No disrespect intended, but it's true. | ||
Wonder B (wonder_b) 5-Doyen Username: wonder_b Post Number: 298 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 217.128.156.131 |
Ralph it's absolutely true but I am sure it was not what they intended to do... except for those who chose suicide -Kurt C- (but I bet they did it for other motives than post mortem celebrity status... if not then they were really sick individuals... I don't think neither Jimi nor Jim Morrison fall in that category) And by the way this axiom doesn't apply solely to Rock'n Roll... Charlie Parker died at 34. And James Dean died young too... They both became myths after their deaths. None were rock'n rollers as I think Jimi's work expands way beyond rock'n roll. Wonder B (Message edited by Wonder B on May 20, 2004) | ||
GO_GET_GONE_GIRL (gogogirl) 4-Laureate Username: gogogirl Post Number: 80 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 63.159.13.186 |
Great Sat. Day Morning All, I am "Sitting On The Top Of The World", this morning. Got both houses squared away - and getting ready to go shopping. LOL! Anyway - did some get the chance to read this piece on Jimi? Jimi Hendrix is considered a genius by many - it would seem. Most of them say that he was a genius playing the guitar. That is their right to feel so - because Jimi moved them to feel thus. The ones that don't think so - also got the right. I love the suppositions some have thrown out here - and you are right. Anything in life can be subjective - and especially - Music. So in the context of music - and looking at all the artists we know - who would be considered a genius in what they did? If one were to pick a songwriter as being a genius - then that again is subjective, because some wouldn't agree. To some - Jimi was a guitar playing genius - and there is no question. The entire Musical genius thingy - I can't call for sure. The guitar made music - so it was musical - and Jimi made the guitar make the music. It is all up to the believer - and in whatever said believer will utimately end up feeling and believing about most things. Settling on what one might think Jimi Hendrix left behind - is just one of them. I appreciate all of your responses. IMO - the bottom line still remains - that that boy/man knew how to stroke the his guitar on the strong and at times, the amazin' side. He left a long-lasting legacy and was voted as the "Greatest Guitarist" in rock history, by a "Rolling Stone Mag" poll. Many folks from all over the world - loved and appreciated/s him and his style, indeed. And for the ones that think he was/is ok but not all that - you also hold power in your beliefs. And in retrospect - surely - Jimi had his OWN style and did his OWN thing. He is not the first - nor will he be the last musical figure - to leave behind a Legacy. http://www.inet.hr/~abubalo/sp ecial/special.html |
