Why is Hendrix so revered amongst guitarists?

streethawk

Danny1969 said:

For the Jump fans, skip to 2:16 for isolated solo, awesome accurate technique

I don't listen to Van Halen but that is bloody good.

koneguitarist

Do you think, that sometimes the simplicity and rawness of some music allows the youngest to think its for them only ?

Throughout popular musical history we have had plenty of real back to the basics raw music, from when Elvis hit in 56, a reaction against a lot of the big band swing stuff, to the Beatles in their early days to punk and grunge etc.

I am not sure what it is, but I feel sometimes you have to be right place right time to really connect with a musical movement. 

For me being 16 in 1978, punk was all over the place and I absolutely detested everything it stood for, but now with hindsight and a few re listens courtesy of my son, I realise some of it was nowhere near as bad as I first thought, and there was some stuff like Sham 69 that I really liked.

It's much easier in hind sight to cherry pick what you like when looking back, but I am not sure we GET IT when we look back at stuff. 

I cannot conceive the impact Elvis had when he burst onto the scene, nor the Beatles, nor Jimi Hendrix, and I have always been very analytical when looking back. So for me if something sounded wrong ie bad playing, mistakes out of tune, whether it be Scotty Moore live with Elvis, or Jimi Hendrix, then to me without benefit of the impact of being there, it will always sound wrong, 

I went to see John Hiatt in concert quite a few years back and I was so worried that I would not like the songs he did with a different guitarist and band, bearing in mind he had Ry Cooder on one album, Sonny Landreth on next, but within minutes I was lost in the music and thought it one of the best gigs I had seen in my life. 

So all of us at some stage get lost in the music, even old farts like me! 

Heartfeltdawn

koneguitarist said:

Do you think, that sometimes the simplicity and rawness of some music allows the youngest to think its for them only ?

Throughout popular musical history we have had plenty of real back to the basics raw music, from when Elvis hit in 56, a reaction against a lot of the big band swing stuff, to the Beatles in their early days to punk and grunge etc.

I am not sure what it is, but I feel sometimes you have to be right place right time to really connect with a musical movement. 

For me being 16 in 1978, punk was all over the place and I absolutely detested everything it stood for, but now with hindsight and a few re listens courtesy of my son, I realise some of it was nowhere near as bad as I first thought, and there was some stuff like Sham 69 that I really liked.

It's much easier in hind sight to cherry pick what you like when looking back, but I am not sure we GET IT when we look back at stuff. 

I cannot conceive the impact Elvis had when he burst onto the scene, nor the Beatles, nor Jimi Hendrix, and I have always been very analytical when looking back. So for me if something sounded wrong ie bad playing, mistakes out of tune, whether it be Scotty Moore live with Elvis, or Jimi Hendrix, then to me without benefit of the impact of being there, it will always sound wrong, 

The problem isn't that the young think raw music is only for them. The problem is that many older folk end up disappearing up their own posterior, get very anal about tuning and tone and sound, and forget the sheer divine beauty of 2 minutes of raw music. 

koneguitarist

Tone and sound I agree with but not tuning, there's no excuse for being out of tune, bum notes is just that a mistake, which we have all done.

ThePrettyDamned

streethawk;226473" said:

Danny1969 said:

For the Jump fans, skip to 2:16 for isolated solo, awesome accurate technique
















I don't listen to Van Halen but that is bloody good.

I'm going to go ahead and say that's proof he's a better rhythm guitarist than lead.

Just... Doesn't sound that great to me. I know, he did tapping and widdly widdly, but randy rhoads was miles better at all of that.

Evh had some cracking rhythm guitar, though.

Heartfeltdawn

koneguitarist said:

Tone and sound I agree with but not tuning, there's no excuse for being out of tune, bum notes is just that a mistake, which we have all done.

There is every excuse. If a guitar goes a bit out of tune in the middle of some astounding moment, so what? Stopping to tune out breaks up the energy of a performance. 

koneguitarist

We all look for different things in music, I like music in tune.

If a guy was playing guitar in your band out of tune, would you just carry on ?

I wouldn't.

streethawk

koneguitarist said:

We all look for different things in music, I like music in tune.

If a guy was playing guitar in your band out of tune, would you just carry on ?

I wouldn't.

This thing about being Jimi being out of tune keeps coming up, bear in mind he didn't use a floyd rose and absolutely hammered the trem. They also use earphones these days with the rest of the band way down in the mix. He had none of that and he was singing too.

I've seen loads of clips of Hendrix retuning during a performance and to be honest I've not really noticed him being badly out of tune all the time.

Dave_Mc

ThePrettyDamned said:

I'm going to go ahead and say that's proof he's a better rhythm guitarist than lead.

Just... Doesn't sound that great to me. I know, he did tapping and widdly widdly, but randy rhoads was miles better at all of that.

Evh had some cracking rhythm guitar, though.

I disagree (and I like randy too).

ToneControl

Heartfeltdawn said:

koneguitarist said:

Do you think, that sometimes the simplicity and rawness of some music allows the youngest to think its for them only ?

Throughout popular musical history we have had plenty of real back to the basics raw music, from when Elvis hit in 56, a reaction against a lot of the big band swing stuff, to the Beatles in their early days to punk and grunge etc.

I am not sure what it is, but I feel sometimes you have to be right place right time to really connect with a musical movement. 

For me being 16 in 1978, punk was all over the place and I absolutely detested everything it stood for, but now with hindsight and a few re listens courtesy of my son, I realise some of it was nowhere near as bad as I first thought, and there was some stuff like Sham 69 that I really liked.

It's much easier in hind sight to cherry pick what you like when looking back, but I am not sure we GET IT when we look back at stuff. 

I cannot conceive the impact Elvis had when he burst onto the scene, nor the Beatles, nor Jimi Hendrix, and I have always been very analytical when looking back. So for me if something sounded wrong ie bad playing, mistakes out of tune, whether it be Scotty Moore live with Elvis, or Jimi Hendrix, then to me without benefit of the impact of being there, it will always sound wrong, 

The problem isn't that the young think raw music is only for them. The problem is that many older folk end up disappearing up their own posterior, get very anal about tuning and tone and sound, and forget the sheer divine beauty of 2 minutes of raw music. 

Yeah, because people get less musical as they age don't they, and there's nothing meaningful to learn after you're about 25 is there?

As we all know, most of the best art and music is created by people at the start of their careers, before many are corrupted by learning too much technique and craft, which would automatically obstruct raw music. Hendrix himself would probably have lost all his mojo as he got older, like all the other top musicians before him, as he polished his live performances, thus removing the beauty of the random mistakes. With every passing year, his renditions of his old material would have become less and less musically satisfying.

That's why you can't find older players (with no tuning or accuracy issues) who play in more raw and aggressive styles than they did when they were younger. Except Jeff Beck, Fripp, Zappa, Billy Gibbons,..  

seany65

I'm prolly the only member here who doesn't listen to Hendrix. I know he was creative and pushed boundaries etc., but I just don't 'get' his stuff. From the little I've read in this thread, it seems like he made quite a few mistakes when playing, and it also seems that a lot of members not only accept those mistakes, but actually like his music because of them.

What I'd be interested to know is, of all those members who do like His mistakes, how many of them practice their guitar-playing so that they themselves don't make mistakes?

How many guitarists are allowed to 'get away with' quite a few mistakes when they play?

streethawk

seany65 said:

I'm prolly the only member here who doesn't listen to Hendrix. I know he was creative and pushed boundaries etc., but I just don't 'get' his stuff. From the little I've read in this thread, it seems like he made quite a few mistakes when playing, and it also seems that a lot of members not only accept those mistakes, but actually like his music because of them.

What I'd be interested to know is, of all those members who do like His mistakes, how many of them practice their guitar-playing so that they themselves don't make mistakes?

How many guitarists are allowed to 'get away with' quite a few mistakes when they play?

There seem to be a lot of people who don't listen to Hendrix yet are hyper aware of him making lots of mistakes and being out of tune.

Interesting... maybe it's because they're not feeling what he was doing and so judge him using strict technical criteria?

If your career revolves around being a virtuoso instrumentalist - like many 'rock' guitarists today - then yes, you'd better be in tune and practice your scales. Hendrix wasn't about that, never claimed to be. 

It was his music, his context, his approach to performance. I doubt anybody attending Woodstock did so with the aim of experiencing impeccable guitar technique.

In other words, I don't understand the question 'how many players are allowed to get away with quite a few mistakes?'. It's alien to me. Stinks of leather trousers with tassles.

koneguitarist

streethawk said:

seany65 said:

I'm prolly the only member here who doesn't listen to Hendrix. I know he was creative and pushed boundaries etc., but I just don't 'get' his stuff. From the little I've read in this thread, it seems like he made quite a few mistakes when playing, and it also seems that a lot of members not only accept those mistakes, but actually like his music because of them.

What I'd be interested to know is, of all those members who do like His mistakes, how many of them practice their guitar-playing so that they themselves don't make mistakes?

How many guitarists are allowed to 'get away with' quite a few mistakes when they play?

There seem to be a lot of people who don't listen to Hendrix yet are hyper aware of him making lots of mistakes and being out of tune.

Interesting... maybe it's because they're not feeling what he was doing and so judge him using strict technical criteria?

If your career revolves around being a virtuoso instrumentalist - like many 'rock' guitarists today - then yes, you'd better be in tune and practice your scales. Hendrix wasn't about that, never claimed to be. 

It was his music, his context, his approach to performance. I doubt anybody attending Woodstock did so with the aim of experiencing impeccable guitar technique.

In other words, I don't understand the question 'how many players are allowed to get away with quite a few mistakes?'. It's alien to me. Stinks of leather trousers with tassles.

The majority of people who attended Woodstock were young hippies out for a good time, most were so far from the stage they did not know who was playing. Let alone hear them properly. 

Point is as with all types of music it evolves and we expect different things.

Also since the advent of solo artists with backing tracks, bands have had to up their game, better quality PA, sound guy, even down the local pub, also less drinking as most of us have to drive home.

The audience expects a good sounding gig, they can't tell half the time if you have played it right as long as it sounds in tune and in time. 

Randy Hansen did a great tribute to Hendrix, he left out the bad tuning and bum notes though, unlike most rock and roll guitarists who copies Scotty Moores solo in Too much by Elvis, they copy the mistakes and bad timing which always cracks Scotty up!

Sambostar

Jazz is mostly out of tune and how many people like that?

To me, it's not what you play but how you play it and what kind of mood or message you translate.  Personally I favour percussion, vibrato, bends and energy to exact notes in pitch.  To me someone criticizing someone elses tuning smacks of an aging muso at a concert not enjoying themselves.  How many people thought Slash was a kick up the arse for rock when GNR came along.  I love early GNR and slashes edgy and moody playing with loads of mistakes and improvised nonsensicals, but it was a world away from the proficient, in tune, technical rock that was going on previously, which, apart from a few bands, was becoming boring frankly.  Early Alice Cooper, Rick Nielsen, earlier Joe Perry.  All fundamentally out of tune, but edgy and expressive. 

I hate modern metal, with everything exactly 'In tune'. It is so literally it has lost it's way.  The music has been lost in favour of tuning.

Warren Demartini was edgy, because of his honky single tone bends.  Even an early rock and rock single tone bend is fundamentally out of tune and was scorned at the time by 'tuneful' players.

A decent guitar player can pick up any old out of tune guitar and still make you cry, without hitting you over the head with it.

Sambostar

It's like Art, why is Picasso still so popular when you can get a photo real painting done by a talented school kid for a few pounds?  It's all about expression.  You don't see people going around impressionist art exhibitions and going 'It doesn't look much like anything though does it?  I don't think the guy was very talented, do you?  Was he blind or half cut or something when he painted that?'  Even more literal art have impressionist elements to set the mood or tone of the picture.

Fretwired

Sambostar said:

It's like Art, why is Picasso still so popular when you can get a photo real painting done by a talented school kid for a few pounds?  It's all about expression.

@Sambostar .. have a  wisdom ... :-)

randomhandclaps

Sambostar said:

It's like Art, why is Picasso still so popular when you can get a photo real painting done by a talented school kid for a few pounds?  It's all about expression. 

Although this point is spot on and I did think about highlighting this angle earlier, I realised this thread a is in reality a mad old cat lady asking you why anyone would ever want to buy a dog.

Neil

Sambostar said:

It's like Art, why is Picasso still so popular when you can get a photo real painting done by a talented school kid for a few pounds?  It's all about expression.  You don't see people going around impressionist art exhibitions and going 'It doesn't look much like anything though does it?  I don't think the guy was very talented, do you?  Was he blind or half cut or something when he painted that?'  Even more literal art have impressionist elements to set the mood or tone of the picture.

And a wisdom from me.  

Very well put. Somebody gets it.  

Megii

I honestly think it's hopeless to try and persuade people who like some form of art, not to like it anymore. It's not working on me anyhow - first time I heard Hendrix (Foxy Lady IIRC - I'd bought a copy of Are You Experienced on vinyl) something just grabbed me, and Hendrix still has that kind of impact on me. I've read the criticisms on this thread, and I still think Hendrix was amazing. Has anyone else been persuaded not to like Hendrix any more? I doubt it...

I'm not against scientific analysis by any means, but I do feel that in the realm of art, the reasons why we might be particularly drawn to any given thing are ultimately beyond analysis. It's just no use coming up with a list of negative points re Hendrix - sometimes out of tune, mistakes, whatever - and then holding that up against a list of things said to be necessary requirements to be a "good" guitarist - must be in tune, must play in a clinically accurate way, must demonstrate ability to play fast, etc.... It's ridiculous really - Hendrix to many people, including myself, was a great and powerful artist. I can't explain in any kind of defined way, exactly why I like Hendrix's music, and if you don't like him, fair enough - we're all different (did someone say "I'm not"?  ) but you're just onto a loser trying to convert Hendrix fans against him with the force of your intellectual argument. Why would you want to anyway?

"Music evolves and we expect different things" - hmm - well yes, it does change - but that doesn't mean the old stuff is worse, or has been superseded - I like a heck of a lot of old jazz for example. Also Bach as it happens. Not entirely sure about the "expect" part either - sometimes surely it's good not to know quite what to expect? 

EricTheWeary

The bit about simple and raw music for the yoof is singly odd to me. The history of pop music may well have the rawness of early Elvis, Hendrix doing Wild Thing, the Sex Pistols, Run DMC or Kurt Cobain in there but there is plenty of polished music ( Cliff or One Direction or huge amounts of what has made up the charts in the last 60 years)and even quite complicated music ( Sinatra with a swinging big band or trad jazz or Prog rock have all had teen followings)in there too.

Indeed the world of one man and his slightly out of tune guitar in the shape of blues or world music or folk is seen as almost anything but targetted at a young market.I know John Lee Hooker got on TOTP in the 1960's but I doubt if it was generations of teenagers who gave him a continued and succesfull career up to his death - surely the archetype we see there is the middle aged man looking for the true meaning of Da Blooze hidden in a JLH cd.

As an intense young person who believed he was the first to discover music and wanted to tell the world about it I had an increasingly complicated set of boundaries as to what I thought was acceptable. I have some of those now, I know, but by and large the passage of time has allowed me a much more liberal approach and I can enjoy all sorts of stuff my teenage self wouldn't have liked.

The intensity of my youthfull explorations(!) means the music I loved in that period is still with me in way that almost nothing since is. But sitting in darkened rooms listening to albums isn't really what I do now so something raw and immediate is far more likely to register with me now then it was then.

And when I listen now to Jim Campilongo doing purposefully atonal bends or when I was bouncing up and down in my ska band the notion that anything less than perfectly in tune is pretty meaningless. That's train spotting, its not enjoying music as I do. 


Footnote: watching one of the members of St Etienne ( indie dance band I guess you would say) being interviewed on the televisual box about his love for Jimi Hendrix this week. The notion that to be inspired by someone meant you tried to play like them as the only outlet for that is simply wrong - Hendrix went way beyond just those who bought a wah and an old cavalry jacket.  

Extra footnote: yes, I should get on with something else now.
~O)