Jimi Hendrix is overrated.

Neapolitan · 04-01-2013, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

I know, things will sound different live, but Jesus does that guitar sound bad.

What do you mean by "bad?"
Like when you say "bad" do you mean: Man that guitar sound Jimi had was "bad" like real "bad" ass. or Man that guitar sound Jimi had is bad like terribly "bad."?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

Creativity

Okay, so I’m going to admit that I like Foxy Lady and All along The Watchtower - they are pretty damn catchy. I’m not going to deny the fact the Jimi had some creative genius in him – it’s just the fact that he had to (mostly) rely on LSD and various other drugs to compose songs.

All along The Watchtower was "catchy" because Zimmie penned it, actually.

Really Jimi's reliance was on the Sci-fi paper-back novels he read. Purple Haze was base on something from a book he read, it was not based on LSD-25 or any various other (I presume non-pharmaceutical) drugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

I compare that to The Beatles’ Let It Be and Abbey Road albums – they had simply run out of ideas and turned to drugs to help find a new tune.

I was assured by Ringo Starr in an interveiw he did that they [The Beatles] were not under the infleunce of the laughing grass or (non-pharmaceutical/street) drugs whilst they were recording in the studio . And Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds isn't about LSD as some propose. It was a picture I think that Julian drew supposively or at least that is what John told the press maybe as a cover up which I doubt he would throw his own son under the bus to cover up a (non-pharmaceutical/street) drug reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

For all that Jimi is praised in his techniques; he doesn’t really expand outside his genre. A true musician explores all genres and styles. Jimi only delves into rock, blues and a bit of psychedelic, and that’s it.

Holy moly what do you expect they had back in the 60's? Dub-step? Glitch-Hop? Jimi probably did explore all the genres available back in the 60's. I don't know if he recorded Country Music but his favourite guitarist was a country guitarist, Clarence White, who was the guitarist for the Byrds who he listen to quite a lot. And btw you forgot to mention Jazz, R&B and Soul.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 04-01-2013, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Why can't we have more comments of this quality? Well thought-out, making proper points and considering all opinions....

STOP QUOTING BLOODY SPAM POSTS AS IT DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF CRAP THE MODS HAVE TO DELETE.

thank you

MoonlitSunshine · 04-01-2013, 08:26 AM

Just for curiosity's sake - What were the groundbreaking changes that Hendrix brought to music? My knowledge of timelines and "who followed who" is a little bit hazy, particularly so for mid to late 20th century music.

Trollheart · 04-01-2013, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

STOP QUOTING BLOODY SPAM POSTS AS IT DOUBLES THE AMOUNT OF CRAP THE MODS HAVE TO DELETE.

thank you

Jeez! No need to shout! How do I know what you're going to delete? Oh my ears!!!

PoorOldPo · 04-01-2013, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

*well I'm going to get a lot of flak for this but oh well*

2 Reasons Why Jimi Hendrix is overrated

1. His use of the whammy bar/Playing in general

watch a video of his performance of Hey Joe at Woodstock and compare it to his studio version. In my opinion I think he absolutely destroys the whammy bar in the song in a bad way. Nearly every lick starts and finishes with it, and because of the amount of distortion it sounds like he knows that he will make a mistake so he uses the whammy bar and distortion to hide it.
Also, his playing is incredibly sloppy. I know, things will sound different live, but Jesus does that guitar sound bad.

2. Creativity

Okay, so I’m going to admit that I like Foxy Lady and All along The Watchtower - they are pretty damn catchy. I’m not going to deny the fact the Jimi had some creative genius in him – it’s just the fact that he had to (mostly) rely on LSD and various other drugs to compose songs. I compare that to The Beatles’ Let It Be and Abbey Road albums – they had simply run out of ideas and turned to drugs to help find a new tune.
For all that Jimi is praised in his techniques; he doesn’t really expand outside his genre. A true musician explores all genres and styles. Jimi only delves into rock, blues and a bit of psychedelic, and that’s it.

Your drug argument is invalid. The drugs enhanced their creativity if anything, but it does not take away from what they made. And the Beatles were no under the influence while recording.

ZiggyStardust · 04-01-2013, 09:52 AM

A further 3 reasons -

1. His rendition of The Star Spangled Banner is, in all fairness, a mess. It truly is. Now, if you or I made that then people would laugh at you and call you a bit funny, but because it's Hendrix then automatically people assume that it's brilliant.
It's like Smoke on The Water. Okay, so forget that fact that it's the first thing you can play on the guitar and it's by Deep Purple and mentions Frank Zappa, and listen to it again. It's a terrible song.

2. Yes, drugs can make your creativity better, but ultimately when you get to the point where you need to take drugs to write great songs is the moment where you are not a naturally talented song writer.

3. The whole ''3 years is not enough to expand'' bull****. Take The Beatles' 1963 album Please Please Me and count on 3 years. You get to their 1966 album Revolver, which is arguably one of the greatest albums of all time. 3 years. Hendrix had three years, but he didn't evolve the much.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 04-01-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

3. The whole ''3 years is not enough to expand'' bull****. Take The Beatles' 1963 album Please Please Me and count on 3 years. You get to their 1966 album Revolver, which is arguably one of the greatest albums of all time. 3 years. Hendrix had three years, but he didn't evolve the much.

Utter bollocks.

Go listen to the first Experience album and then go listen to First Rays of the New Rising Sun which was the stuff he was working on just before he died.

There's a world of difference.

Plus you're failing to take into account that Hendrix sounded groundbreaking on his first album while the Beatles first album was filled with standard rock n roll covers of the day.

PoorOldPo · 04-01-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

2. Yes, drugs can make your creativity better, but ultimately when you get to the point where you need to take drugs to write great songs is the moment where you are not a naturally talented song writer.

Did you even read what I said? Or just reply to what you needed to make this response? First of all, Jimi and Lennon and the boys were not LSD victims, Syd was. Jimi didn't rely on LSD to write music, sure it enhanced his mind and thus, creativity, but he did not rely on it. lol.

Funny that you used the "natural songwriter" spiel, because the majority of the people in the 60's that are considered the most naturally talented songwriters, took LSD or had taken it at some point.

**Janszoon** · 04-01-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoorOldPo

Did you even read what I said? Or just reply to what you needed to make this response? First of all, Jimi and Lennon and the boys were not LSD victims, Syd was. Jimi didn't rely on LSD to write music, sure it enhanced his mind and thus, creativity, but he did not rely on it. lol.

Funny that you used the "natural songwriter" spiel, because the majority of the people in the 60's that are considered the most naturally talented songwriters, took LSD or had taken it at some point.

It's not just the 60s. If we're going to discount every drug user from the list of greats there'd be hardly anyone left in general. Hell, you'd probably wipe out the whole genre of jazz.

Electrophonic Tonic · 04-01-2013, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiggyStardust

A further 3 reasons -

1. His rendition of The Star Spangled Banner is, in all fairness, a mess. It truly is. Now, if you or I made that then people would laugh at you and call you a bit funny, but because it's Hendrix then automatically people assume that it's brilliant.
It's like Smoke on The Water. Okay, so forget that fact that it's the first thing you can play on the guitar and it's by Deep Purple and mentions Frank Zappa, and listen to it again. It's a terrible song.

What is messy about it? The squeaking and screams? Know those are mimicking sounds of airplanes, bombers and machine guns, right? Jimi's version is a protest song in front of Woodstock, not a faithful rendition to open the Super Bowl. And, I'm not sure how difficult it is on guitar, but the Star Spangled Banner is an incredibly demanding and complex song to sing properly. So the fact he could weave the original song with all of his embelishments in a fluid way is extraordinary to me.

And, who do you think is a really good guitarist compared to Jimi Hendrix?

04-01-2013, 08:26 AM	#13 (permalink)
MoonlitSunshine Dat's Der Bunny! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,088	Just for curiosity's sake - What were the groundbreaking changes that Hendrix brought to music? My knowledge of timelines and "who followed who" is a little bit hazy, particularly so for mid to late 20th century music. __________________ "I found it eventually, at the bottom of a locker in a disused laboratory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard". Ever thought of going into Advertising?" - Arthur Dent

04-01-2013, 09:52 AM	#16 (permalink)
ZiggyStardust Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Mars Posts: 108	A further 3 reasons - 1. His rendition of The Star Spangled Banner is, in all fairness, a mess. It truly is. Now, if you or I made that then people would laugh at you and call you a bit funny, but because it's Hendrix then automatically people assume that it's brilliant. It's like Smoke on The Water. Okay, so forget that fact that it's the first thing you can play on the guitar and it's by Deep Purple and mentions Frank Zappa, and listen to it again. It's a terrible song. 2. Yes, drugs can make your creativity better, but ultimately when you get to the point where you need to take drugs to write great songs is the moment where you are not a naturally talented song writer. 3. The whole ''3 years is not enough to expand'' bull****. Take The Beatles' 1963 album Please Please Me and count on 3 years. You get to their 1966 album Revolver, which is arguably one of the greatest albums of all time. 3 years. Hendrix had three years, but he didn't evolve the much. __________________ Welcome to the internet, where opinions are like toilets; everyone thinks theirs are perfect but the public ones stink.