SR VII

don't scold our new Collab Peter    ..though I would add to your wise words that Jimi was actually an incredible technician and could still probably out play most guitarists in rock today (except for Ron Jarzombek but that's just me  )

Peter wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: I love Mood For A Day Out of interest, Hughes, what do you think of Hendrix? (just curious, since you're a shreddifier technical guitar person) So innovative, a lot of feeling. My problem with Hendrix, is that he has been hyped up so much by the media, many guitarists like myself feel he isn't as good as the hype, even as legendary as he was. Honestly, he was more of an amazing song writer with true feel and soul than a magnificent guitar player, a sentiment shared by me and many other guitarists. A lot of people forget he made song writing innovations and wasn't just an innovative player. Just in case you're significantly younger than Jimi would be today:   Re his "hype" and technigue, don't forget to put him in his historic context. Go back to 1967, listen to the prevailing radio for a while (so innocent, so "gosh golly gee whiz-cute" , and then notice how radically DIFFERENT, psychedelic and heavy Jimi is. His innovation on the electric guitar is best viewed in its contemporary context. You had to be there, to fully appreciate Jimi's impact. His style is not radical now, granted -- but it wasTHEN.   History is not "hype." History is history. It's there for a reason. Don't judge old things by 21st century standards -- that's missing the point!

Haha, I do understand the point you're making.
I still watch the Woodstock performance every couple of weeks, and never ceased to be amazed by how amazing that was for it's time.
I don't question his innovation, his passion and achievements on the guitar at all.
It's just, him, Page, etc, have garnered a lot of hype when there were guitarists just as innovative like John Mclaughlin, Allan Holdsworth etc, who were easily just as important to the evolution of guitar playing, but are only generally highly regarded among other guitarists (such as myself), while Hendrix and Page etc get the whole media shebang from all corners.
I just wish it were more fair than that for those other astounding players, but alas, that's just the way it is and I guess John Mclaughlin etc are more than happy to be highly revered among other musicians (as opposed to musicians AND non musicians).

NaturalScience wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: NaturalScience wrote: My worst job was cleaning floors of businesses after they had closed.  Only lasted a couple of months doing that.   Ouch! I can't say I'm fond of cleaning floors. BTW Pat, odd question, but what exactly does a site monitor do? I've been wondering that for ages now. I'm trying to figure it out myself.  You can read some of the recent discussion in the CZ.

Hopefully that will enlighten me

NaturalScience wrote: Peter wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: I love Mood For A Day Out of interest, Hughes, what do you think of Hendrix? (just curious, since you're a shreddifier technical guitar person) So innovative, a lot of feeling. My problem with Hendrix, is that he has been hyped up so much by the media, many guitarists like myself feel he isn't as good as the hype, even as legendary as he was. Honestly, he was more of an amazing song writer with true feel and soul than a magnificent guitar player, a sentiment shared by me and many other guitarists. A lot of people forget he made song writing innovations and wasn't just an innovative player. Just in case you're significantly younger than Jimi would be today:   Re his "hype" and technique, don't forget to put him in his historic context. Go back to 1967, listen to the prevailing radio for a while (so innocent, so "gosh golly gee whiz-cute" , and then notice how radically DIFFERENT, psychedelic and heavy Jimi is. His innovation on the electric guitar is best viewed in its contemporary context. You had to be there, to fully appreciate Jimi's impact. His style is not radical now, granted -- but it sure was THEN!   History is not "hype." History is history. It's there for a reason. Don't judge old things by 21st century standards -- that's missing the point! But doesn't that reiterate what Harry was trying to say?  It was the innovation of the sound, not so much the pure technique is what made Jimi great (not that his technique was terrible, mind you).  That's what I got out of his post.

Edited by Peter - November 08 2008 at 22:23

Peter wrote: But remember, it wasn't about playing as fast as humanly possible back then -- it wasn't all a technique show -- it was about feeling, and speaking to an era and a generation. Hope you can understand that -- I won't sit back and see Jimi run down by his guitar descendants.

Harry wrote: Honestly, he was more of an amazing song writer with true feel and soul than a magnificent guitar player, a sentiment shared by me and many other guitarists. A lot of people forget he made song writing innovations and wasn't just an innovative player.

10,000 posts!

We knew you'd get there Pat.

Welcome aboard to the hall of n00bs, along with me, James, and all those other guys that posted heaps in the chat room threads to get stupidly high post counts

HughesJB4 wrote: Peter wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: TGM: Orb wrote: I love Mood For A Day Out of interest, Hughes, what do you think of Hendrix? (just curious, since you're a shreddifier technical guitar person) So innovative, a lot of feeling. My problem with Hendrix, is that he has been hyped up so much by the media, many guitarists like myself feel he isn't as good as the hype, even as legendary as he was. Honestly, he was more of an amazing song writer with true feel and soul than a magnificent guitar player, a sentiment shared by me and many other guitarists. A lot of people forget he made song writing innovations and wasn't just an innovative player. Just in case you're significantly younger than Jimi would be today:   Re his "hype" and technigue, don't forget to put him in his historic context. Go back to 1967, listen to the prevailing radio for a while (so innocent, so "gosh golly gee whiz-cute" , and then notice how radically DIFFERENT, psychedelic and heavy Jimi is. His innovation on the electric guitar is best viewed in its contemporary context. You had to be there, to fully appreciate Jimi's impact. His style is not radical now, granted -- but it wasTHEN.   History is not "hype." History is history. It's there for a reason. Don't judge old things by 21st century standards -- that's missing the point! Haha, I do understand the point you're making. I still watch the Woodstock performance every couple of weeks, and never ceased to be amazed by how amazing that was for it's time. I don't question his innovation, his passion and achievements on the guitar at all. It's just, him, Page, etc, have garnered a lot of hype when there were guitarists just as innovative like John Mclaughlin, Allan Holdsworth etc, who were easily just as important to the evolution of guitar playing, but are only generally highly regarded among other guitarists (such as myself), while Hendrix and Page etc get the whole media shebang from all corners. I just wish it were more fair than that for those other astounding players, but alas, that's just the way it is and I guess John Mclaughlin etc are more than happy to be highly revered among other musicians (as opposed to musicians AND non musicians).

Edited by Peter - November 08 2008 at 22:48

Peter wrote: [  I'm not a guitarist, but I was born in 1960, and I'm a huge rock music fan.   I will concede that those guys were/are amazing guitarists,and techniquely as "good' as Hendrix -- but (for better or worse) they didn't have anywhere near the impact on rock history.   Again, popularity (history) is a huge part of my point. I'm not talking about who deserved fame -- Jimi won it, he came along and grabbed it, and he spoke to the masses. I am 100% certain that more guitarists (and rock fans) will recognize his name and his influence on their style (and favourite music) , than will recognize -- let alone cite -- Mclaughlin, Holdsworth, Beck, et al. (Though I LOVE those guys. The artist's star level , the "hype" if you will, is a necessary part odf the equation. Influence is largely commensurate with fame. Ask Holdworth, et al, if Jimi was a trailblazer....)   Hendrix was the Hendrix of guitar!     Nice conversation!  (I sense we largely agree, anyway....)

And indeed, that is of course indisputable.
Hendrix got the widespread fame and as a result his influence reached more people.
And while his not in my top ten favorite guitarist, nor top ten influential on my own style, there is no doubt in my mind when I play a bluesy lick, it will recall Hendrix to some extent.

Cya Linus!