Hendrix?

I just don't hear where he influenced Prog, care to share some examples?  The possibility that Fripp or Howe or any number of others were impacted by Hendrix's breakthroughs doesn't necessarily make him prog or protoprog    ..and frankly his listing on other prog sites only makes me doubt his prog credentials even more

Atavachron wrote: I just don't hear where he influenced Prog, care to share some examples?  The possibility that Fripp or Howe or any number of others were impacted by Hendrix's breakthroughs doesn't necessarily make him prog or protoprog    ..and frankly his listing on other prog sites only makes me doubt his prog credentials even more

On what terms did The Beatles, The Who, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and The Doors get here? Seems like Jimi falls right in line with these artists.

Windhawk wrote: Hmmm, this is one of those topics that pop up now and then that really needs to get resolved one way or the other. It's quite clear that any of the bonafide prog genres is out of bounds for Hendrix, his music, although heavily psychedelic tinged at times, is too bluesy and basic for those (don't expect many objections to that one).   Olav, that's what it matters for us HIS MUSIC, if it's not enough, then no other influence counts. He is arguably one of the most influential guitarists around though, and as guitars is a rather prominent instrument in prog rock, chances are good that he's influenced many of the classic as well as contemporary guitarists playing prog.   The simple performance of an instrument, no matter how virtuoso the player is, doesn't merit an inclusion, if not, the musician Lester William Polsfuss for the design of teh gibson Les Paul would be here, because he has influenced everything, and of course Emmett Chappman  would be here, not only for his performance (He used the double handed tapping techniche before than Hackett but in Jazz) but for creating the Chappman Stick, and that's absurd.   How much of an impact that has been on the genre as such can be disputed, but I believe you'd have a hard time denying his influence on guitarists in prog bands; and in most varieties of prog to boot.   If it's disputed, doubtful, with no precision, that's not the influence that counts for us, the compositions are the ones that merit an inclusion. I have no personal opinion when it comes to his inclusion or not - but to put an end to this and future topics discussing Jimi going out of hand, I suggest that the admins evaluate him as a possible proto prog act.   There will never be an end to this, becayuse even if M@X decides no, people will insist as they insist in TOTO or Boston, and each time a newbie that has heard about  Hendrix joins the forum, he will suggest him and protest becausse he's not here and bands like Iron Maiden are. Makes it much easier if we then at a future point in time can say that he's been evaluated - I'm kinda guessing that there will be a no in this case. What's important is that he'd then have been subject to an evaluation :-)   Not important at all, M@X said clearly no Metallica, Administrators said no, but Metallica is here because people insisted and Mike started a 20 pages thread. Admins watching - any objections?   I hope they do it, but again people will insist no matter what.   Iván

Okay, my opinion.  I have supported Jimi Hendrix (as well as most definitely Cream since that has been mentioned in this thread, and it seems whenever Jimi get mentioned I say that Cream should be here, and one topic mentioned both), and I still think that Hendrix would be a fairly fair addition to the site (though he may be more of a Proto-Prog Related artist), though I don't know how well he fits Proto Prog.  Hendrix was a progressive rock artist, but not Prog (nor primitive Prog really).  His influence was in general more on rock overall than particularly Prog artists (a similar concern I raised about Metallica -- that Metallica was more influential to metal generally than Prog specifically).  Technically, for instance, his controlled use of distortion (a big influence on the rejected P-Funk incidentally) was progressive, but structurally I don't know that he was doing things that greatly expanded the rock universe.  Still, one of the most important aspects of Prog is a hybridisation of styles, and Hendrix (though not unusual in it for the time) at least has explored, and drawn from, psych rock (and psych is very important to Prog), funk/ jazz, soul, and blues (though funk in itself derives from R&B, jazz, and soul), and I think his instrumentals not alien to the Progiverse (a more "primitive" form perhaps), or... never mind.

For his hybridisations of styles, his experimental qualities, his significance in the psych rock movement, as well as his innovations in guitar playing, I think he could have a place here.  He was never Prog (or early/ primitive prog really, and of course there were artists of his time who were creating Prog even if it wasn't known as Prog at the time -- I don't even like the term Prog), but as far as I'm concerned, he was part of the 60's progressive (adjective) rock scene -- doing interesting things that helped to progress rock. 

I don't know that his approach to music is that far-removed from the so-called Progressive Rock approach (and indeed, it could be said that Prog is, in part, an extension of the work of seminal rock artists such as Jimi Hendrix, but to say that is to say very little indeed -- lolz).

P.S. I think people disassociate blues from Prog too much and funk-rock is hardly anathema to Prog (thinking of Band of Gipsies -- what a great album - funk is an important element of much Prog that I love).

So a rather weak post from me since I don't have much in the way of substantial arguments to make the case, and my pondering out loud here is not that valid, nor have i bothered to research his historical impact, and I would argue with myself over certain ideas expressed.  The notion of Proto-Prog and Related is rather vague for me (can be), and I'll let others who understand the categories better than I (what makes one artist acceptable and another dismissed) make a case. 

Jimi Hendrix was progressive, and moved in the same circles as Proto-Prog and early Prog acts, but perhaps he didn't develop enough (or have the chance to develop) as a progressive rock artist.  I don't think he'd be out of place amongst other Proto-Prog artists here, but strictly speaking, I think he may be more Proto-Prog Related than Proto-Prog.  Influential, yes, involved in psych, yes, progressive, yes, more than rock and roll, yes absolutely, but I wouldn't credit him for creating early Prog, or Proto-Prog templates (he was part of an exciting scene that impacted Prog, but not that innovative beyond a technical level, I'd say).  Not truly Proto-Prog (making primitive, or original Prog as proto implies.  It was not Prog in the embryonic stage, though he has Proto-Proggish music.  I do think he could fit, but I don't think he was an important artist in the creation of Prog (others of the time were much more Prog); yet he was progressive.  Proto Prog really should be for vanguard artists that heralded the creation of full Prog (created primitive/ early forms of Prog), or else change the name from Proto.  But, I still think he could fit both due to his connection with other PP artists as well as his approach to making music; however; composition/ structure should be key, I think, and I suspect he falls too short of the mark (even if he has his moments).

Apologies for this post, it's long, not very valid, misguided, and without substance. I wanted to write something (as I promised to say more later early on in the thread -- don't know I bothered making such a promise as my response is hardly needed; no one would care if I responded or not), but am not feeling at all well today.  I'll post it so to embarrass myself in order to curb such self-indulgence in the future, but just ignore it, please.  It's not worth responding to.


Edited by Logan - November 30 2008 at 12:35

Windhawk wrote: I don't think there will be too many cases like Metallica though - at least not as controversial.

1. Blue Oyster Cult
2. iron Maiden
3. Journey
4. The Who
5. The Doors
6. Steeleye Span
7. Steely Dan
8. Radiohead (On it's day it was probably the most controversial band)

Are this enough?

1. Blue Oyster Cult
   - Don't see them as very controversial. Good fit for related
   
2. iron Maiden
   - Same as above
   
3. Journey
   - Don't know the act, so can't comment
   
4. The Who
   - Not overly familiar with those, I would not have voted them in but don't see them as a problem
   
5. The Doors
   - Good fit for related
   
6. Steeleye Span
   - Don't know the band
   
7. Steely Dan
   - Don't know the band
   
8. Radiohead (On it's day it was probably the most controversial band)
   - I have major problems in seeing how this band could ever have been regarded as controversial. By anyone.
   

Raff wrote: Windhawk wrote: Blue Oyster Cult - Don't see them as very controversial. Good fit for related Unfortunately, not everyone thought the same as you at the time. I added the band, and the flak I got caused me to leave the site for three months, as well as my position as Admin. In my case, I didn't took part in that discussion iron Maiden - Same as above And same as above... In both cases, I was accused of wanting to add my favourite bands (when I don't even have a favourite band as such). To say it was unpleasant was an understatement. People don't realise that personal attacks go way beyond what is acceptable in such circumstances. As you may remember well, I was one of the few who supported and fought for their inclusion Journey - Don't know the act, so can't comment As you can read, every time a new band is to be added, Journey is used as comparison, so still controversial. The Who - Not overly familiar with those, I would not have voted them in but don't see them as a problem Excellent Rock band, in this case I was against, but shut my mouth as soon as added. The Doors - Good fit for related I supported them for Proto Prog Steeleye Span - Don't know the band IMO only Folk, not Prog Steely Dan - Don't know the band Well, the case still si hot. Radiohead (On it's day it was probably the most controversial band) - I have major problems in seeing how this band could ever have been regarded as controversial. By anyone. Well, a good bunch of us feels is not Prog at all, but also shut my mouth as soon as they were added. I don't say they are wrong, I'm only saying they were highly controversial.   Iván

TGM: Orb wrote: Well, I can't see how 1983 (A Merman I Should Turn To Be) does not qualify as a full blown psychedelic progressive rock piece. Long, unusual, very 'prog' production (with ideas slipping from ear to ear), a range of very interesting percussion sounds, a bit of 'soundscaping' in the middle. A full range of tempos and forces, a subtly included flute, some very blues licks as well as more unusual guitar sounds.   A song doesn't justify an inclusion Anyway, my opinion is that he was responsible for some serious progression in rock,   Dylan, Rolling Stones, Elvis, etc are responsible for a serious progression in Rock, but they are not in PA because we don't add bands for how much they made Rock Progress, but for their relation with Progressive Rock, which is something absolutely different.   and certainly a huge influence on Fripp, especially, and others who were in the prog movement. The psych prog genre owes a lot to him, according to the people who'd know.   Influenced how? Musically or guitar technique? Musically, I doubt it very much, mainly because Fripp was working in 1967 with  Giles, Giles and Fripp, creating his own style. Somebody said before that Santana accepts he has been influenced by Hendrix...FALSE, Santana claims Hendrix was influenced by him   Carlos Santana has suggested that Hendrix's music may have been influenced by his Native American heritage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix ^ "Carlos Santana on Jimi Hendrix". UniVibes (February 1995). Retrieved on 2007-09-18. And if Hendrix influenced Fripp or any other musician because of his guitar technique, doesn't merit an inclusion,. the influence has to be compositional.   I'd put him in proto, at least, but that's just me.   I would leave him out, this is nothing against his greatness, but simply because he's not even Prog related and this is a Progressive Rock site.   Iván

Another intriguing item (in more aspects than this context as well):

http://spot.colorado.edu/~keister/ProgressiveRockClass.htm