Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
Hey welcome to MusicBanter, I'm the forum asshole, arguing for no reason at all is really my forte. And spelling badly, I do that well also.
At this point, I don't care who you vote for as long as you give the stones a fair shot. And I've thought about the possibility that the stones might not have as much to celebrate about but quickly dismissed it. Just because the Stones played music that had already been invented doesn't mean its easy to do, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone can do it, or do it without trying to sound ridiculous or pompous.
They won't be given credit until one of the big ones dies, until then we're getting a "who's better, Hendrix or Clapton", where one's dead and always the winner and the other one lived and made a bunch of suck ass records that makes him "subpar."
|
Well, to be fair... Hendrix's catalogue was never tarnished because he made so few records and most were excellent pieces of highly structured art. Save
Are You Experienced?, which was good, but really feels more like a singles collection than a cohesive album. He managed a masterful blend of blues, funk, psychadelia and occasionally R&B and forged one of the most truly unique and distinctive styles on his instrument in the realm of Rock Music (Those slick double hammer-ons are undeniably cool).
First Rays Of The New Rising Sun only showed more potential for further growth and change.
Clapton came in on the ground floor of blues-rock through the Yardbirds and Cream, but then went on to sterilize the blues and prostitue it by making it into soft radio rock. He has the chops, but in his performances, all the grit is gone. Without the down-home back-porch feel it's just not the same. I know it might be kind of odd to argue
against good production values, but I think that that time-honored genre deserves more respect. He did make the Wah pedal cool with "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and also sort of spawned hard rock with that band (which was cream)... but I think his solo career was so weak that I can't give him
too much praise. I didn't mind the
Unlpugged album though.
I think what it comes down to, is the fact that Jimi has enough soul to move mountains (and chop them down with the back of his hand) while Clapton's a little too clean and whitebread.