Jump to content

Jimi Hendrix


Snake-Pit

Recommended Posts

But he did invent genres, not exclusively but he was certainly a major part in the formation of genres!!

Whether you regard Hendrix as the first hard rocker, or a musician who set precedents for the first hard rockers, there is certainly a direct lineage between songs like 'Fire' and 'Spanish Castle Magic', to the full blown hard rock of Deep Purple and Zeppelin. Psychedelia was shaped by numerous artists but if you were going to name three albums that shaped it, Are You Experienced? would be one. And if you want to look for precedents for 1970s funk there are two or three places to go to but one could be the material Jimi was working on at the time of his death.

I never claimed Flintoff was ''one of the greatest cricketers of all-time'' (I would place him on such a list if it was defined by nationality, his nationality being English) and you clearly have not cottoned onto my semi-jocular flippant aside which my ''three weeks'' quote clearly was (do you take every thing literally?).

What an idiot. Biggest idiot to appear on mygnr since that crazy girl who thought Axl was Beethoven.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But he did invent genres, not exclusively but he was certainly a major part in the formation of genres!!

You can't even form a sentence without internal inconsistency. What the hell do they teach you in northern schools?

Quote

you clearly have not cottoned onto my semi-jocular flippant aside which my ''three weeks'' quote clearly was (do you take every thing literally?)

Oh, I cottoned on that you love to make outrageous, unsupportable and unsubstantiated claims in order to try and bolster whatever argument you happen to be trying to make at any given time.

Relative to you I cannot have "appeared", given that I have been here way longer than you have.

Fish fingers and lard for supper again, Miser?

Edited by PappyTron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

 

 

You can't even form a sentence without internal inconsistency. What the hell do they teach you in northern schools?

 

 

Oh, I cottoned on that you love to make outrageous, unsupportable and unsubstantiated claims in order to try and bolter whatever argument you happen to be trying to make at any given time.

Relative to you I cannot have "appeared", given that I have been here way longer than you have.

Fish fingers and lard for supper again, Miser?

If you are a product of southern schooling, which I'm presuming, I do know that they do not practice irony and flippancy in fairy land, and that the secondary clause poses immense grammatical problems in your addled thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

But he did invent genres, not exclusively but he was certainly a major part in the formation of genres!!

Whether you regard Hendrix as the first hard rocker, or a musician who set precedents for the first hard rockers, there is certainly a direct lineage between songs like 'Fire' and 'Spanish Castle Magic', to the full blown hard rock of Deep Purple and Zeppelin. Psychedelia was shaped by numerous artists but if you were going to name three albums that shaped it, Are You Experienced? would be one. And if you want to look for precedents for 1970s funk there are two or three places to go to but one could be the material Jimi was working on at the time of his death.

I never claimed Flintoff was ''one of the greatest cricketers of all-time'' (I would place him on such a list if it was defined by nationality, his nationality being English) and you clearly have not cottoned onto my semi-jocular flippant aside which my ''three weeks'' quote clearly was (do you take every thing literally?).

What an idiot. Biggest idiot to appear on mygnr since that crazy girl who thought Axl was Beethoven.

 

I always thought Fire was quite funky, very groove orientated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

If you are a product of southern schooling, which I'm presuming, I do know that they do not practice irony and flippancy in fairy land, and that the secondary clause poses immense grammatical problems in your addled thinking.

You claim that Hendrix invented XYZ genres and then, in the very next post stated:

"But he did invent genres, not exclusively but he was certainly a major part in the formation of genres!!"

You are such a poorly educated, and small minded inbred that you cannot even type out eighteen words without contradicting yourself. How many fingers do you have on each hand, Daisy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, classicrawker said:

Agreed, Jim was also getting into a more funky groove with Buddy Miles in the Band of Gypsy's...... wish they had more time to make more music together

Apparently his overall ambition was to lead like an 8 piece RnB combo, how fuckin' fantastic would that have been? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I never claimed Flintoff was ''one of the greatest cricketers of all-time'"

He (Flintoff) would make my top 30

Hmm. Top 30 out of roughly 3000 to have played Test Cricket? Top 1%/top 30 seems like one of the greatest to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PappyTron said:

You claim that Hendrix invented XYZ genres and then, in the very next post stated:

 

 

You are such a poorly educated, and small minded inbred that you cannot even type out eighteen words without contradicting yourself. How many fingers do you have on each hand, Daisy?

Are you even remotely aware that there has never been such a thing as a musical genre created by one person overnight? Music is not a monolith but an organic substance. The classical symphony was not invented by Haydn per se, but invented conterminously in Mannheim, Vienna and Milan. There is a thread on this very forum about the 'first hard rock act' and everybody is throwing forward names like Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin - that should be an indicator that music is not exclusively created by one person. But we can pinpoint certain individuals which forged genres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Are you even remotely aware that there has never been such a thing as a musical genre created by one person overnight? Music is not a monolith but an organic substance. The classical symphony was not invented by Haydn per se, but invented conterminously in Mannheim, Vienna and Milan. There is a thread on this very forum about the 'first hard rock act' and everybody is throwing forward names like Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin - that should be an indicator that music is not exclusively created by one person. But we can pinpoint certain individuals which forged genres.

And yet you are the person who sated that "Hendrix was actually inventing genres". As always, make wild and sweeping statements, no matter how inaccurate, and then when called on it backtrack a little and talk about emotion and feeling. You had tens of thousands of words to choose from and an effectively infinite way of expressing them, but you chose to make the claim that Hendrix invented genres so that you could then ask how many genres Buckethead had invented. Transparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Apparently his overall ambition was to lead like an 8 piece RnB combo, how fuckin' fantastic would that have been? 

Would have been epic......I picture Sly and the Family Stone with Jimi on guitar and vocals ...........:)

Edited by classicrawker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

 

 

Hmm. Top 30 out of roughly 3000 to have played Test Cricket? Top 1%/top 30 seems like one of the greatest to me.

And where did I say ''all-time''?

My opinion on Flintoff is he would make a 'top five English all-rounders', 'a top 30 or so international all-rounders', and a 'top 50 cricketer'. I hope that clarifies it?

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

And yet you are the person who sated that "Hendrix was actually inventing genres". As always, make wild and sweeping statements, no matter how inaccurate, and then when called on it backtrack a little and talk about emotion and feeling. You had tens of thousands of words to choose from and an effectively infinite way of expressing them, but you chose to make the claim that Hendrix invented genres so that you could then ask how many genres Buckethead had invented. Transparent.

...and I actually also mentioned Sgt Pepper when referencing the creation of psychedelia (and in the hard rock thread I mentioned Cream and The Kinks in the creation of hard rock)!!

You are a complete idiot, incapable of digesting thoughts with subordinate clauses, flippant asides and the complexities and nuances of conversation!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimi wanted to collaborate with Miles Davis and Curtis Mayfield. If he lived he probably would have. He was a black guy, from the Chitlin' tradition, yet a Dylan obsessive. He jammed with just about everybody, forging his musicality. He had classical records in his collection. He absorbed the music which was happened in Britain at the time, the studio experimentation of the Beatles. Yet we are supposed to believe that this was a man poorer in versatility and (musical) education than Buckethead? Bloody Buckethead? Now I like Buckethead but jesus!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

His debt to Mayfield is often understated.

Yes but apparently he is inferior to a guy wanking over the Star Wars theme? Fuckin Star Wars? In a KFC hat?

Now I like Bucket - I have five of his cds - but most of his albums consist of three good shred songs and a bunch of wank involving chickens with overdubs from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, If you are putting these albums against Hendrix's masterpieces, then you have serious problems - as this Pappy cock clearly has.

Colma is his best. I do quite like that record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

And where did I say ''all-time''?

My opinion on Flintoff is he would make a 'top five English all-rounders', 'a top 30 or so international all-rounders', and a 'top 50 cricketer'. I hope that clarifies it?

...and I actually also mentioned Sgt Pepper when referencing the creation of psychedelia (and in the hard rock thread I mentioned Cream and The Kinks in the creation of hard rock)!!

You are a complete idiot, incapable of digesting thoughts with subordinate clauses, flippant asides and the complexities and nuances of conversation!!

No, you just like to make wildly inaccurate and false statements and then fall back on "you just don't get it" when pulled up on it. The fact is that you stated that Hendrix "invented entire genres" and when told that that is not true you immediately fell back on "not exclusively but he was certainly a major part in the formation of genres!!" which is NOT the same as "inventing genres" at all. What you meant to say was "Hendrix was around at such a time as lots of fusions of music styles were being played and he contributed to it".

As for Flintoff, I stated that he would not make my top 200 cricketers and you replied that he would make your top 30 cricketers; I notice your backtracking switch...err, "clarification".

And you are a completely inbred dingle who obviously doesn't understand the difference between a conversation and a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yes but apparently he is inferior to a guy wanking over the Star Wars theme? Fuckin Star Wars? In a KFC hat?

Now I like Bucket - I have five of his cds - but most of his albums consist of three good shred songs and a bunch of wank involving chickens with overdubs from Texas Chainsaw Massacre, If you are putting these albums against Hendrix's masterpieces, then you have serious problems - as this Pappy cock clearly has.

Colma is his best. I do quite like that record.

I think yous just have a difference in approach to the question, you appear to be speaking more according to emotion and hes a lot more clinical about it, so you're never gonna reach a consensus because you are approaching the question from different perspectives...suffice to say you can see the validity of his comments regarding Buckethead though right?  I mean the guy has serious fucking range and there is evidence of him doing things that I've personally not seen Hendrix do.  Not saying that he couldnt but you can only argue based on what is out there as evidence.  Now i understand (and have often espoused) your argument that music is an emotive thing and cant be reduced to these sorts of clinical notions but at the same time thats almost the same as saying these sorts of discussions are impossible to settle because by getting onto the emotion aspect you are making the thing subjective.  So if you're going to have discussions like this then you have to be somewhat clinical otherwise its like trying to argue your favourite colour with someone.

And Pappys a Hendrix fan y'know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

"invented entire genres"

I stand by it. I'm sorry for you that you do not understand the fact the music is multi-fabricated and that, me citing Hendrix's influence on a genre does not rob The Kinks of that same influence.

 

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

As for Flintoff, I stated that he would not make my top 200 cricketers and you replied that he would make your top 30 cricketers; I notice your backtracking switch...err, "clarification".

Well I've stated where I stand on Fred - ''because Pappy is a chap who requires clarification as he can get  lost at the merest doubt''  - so that is that and there it is.

2 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

I think yous just have a difference in approach to the question, you appear to be speaking more according to emotion and hes a lot more clinical about it, so you're never gonna reach a consensus because you are approaching the question from different perspectives...suffice to say you can see the validity of his comments regarding Buckethead though right?  I mean the guy has serious fucking range and there is evidence of him doing things that I've personally not seen Hendrix do.  Not saying that he couldnt but you can only argue based on what is out there as evidence.  Now i understand (and have often espoused) your argument that music is an emotive thing and cant be reduced to these sorts of clinical notions but at the same time thats almost the same as saying these sorts of discussions are impossible to settle because by getting onto the emotion aspect you are making the thing subjective.  So if you're going to have discussions like this then you have to be somewhat clinical otherwise its like trying to argue your favourite colour with someone.

And Pappys a Hendrix fan y'know.

But music is a subjective thing! If I was offering an objective opinion I would be discussing science or maths with you, not music. So Bucket's Star Wars contains X amount of notes more than Jimi's Red House? You win! You have prevailed! Argument over! None of this has any implication on my rating of Jimi as the 'greatest guitarist of all time'. I will have my Axis and you will have your Giant Robot, with X more notes per second than Axis - I'm sure.

But then I will have my Axis and you will have your Giant Robots haha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

But music is a subjective thing! If I was offering an objective opinion I would be discussing science or maths with you, not music. So Bucket's Star Wars contains X amount of notes more than Jimi's Red House? You win! You have prevailed! Argument over! None of this has any implication on my rating of Jimi as the 'greatest guitarist of all time'. I will have my Axis and you will have your Giant Robot, with X more notes per second than Axis - I'm sure.

But then I will have my Axis and you will have your Giant Robots haha 

 

I agree that it's a subjective thing but at the same time, if you're going to have a discussion like this then you have to start looking at certain variables with something of a clinical perspective otherwise it's just pointless, it just becomes a case of *puts on the record* 'listen...d'ya hear that?  See, thats what I'm talkin' about!' and that don't really work.  I mean it's subjective right...OK, Johnny Thunders was better than Hendrix...now lets discuss that proposition, bearing in mind now this is entirely subjective.  It just can't be argued, can it, it just becomes a matter of taste.  Johnny Ramones better than Hendrix, prove me wrong, show me where I'm wrong, whilst bearing in mind it's entirely subjective.  Sooner or later you have to get clinical about it, you have to get into shit about who could play more styles, who can solo like a motherfucker etc etc etc.

This is why i bowed out of this discussion early on cuz to me Hendrix is the dogs bollocks as guitarists go, the best of the best, the Bruce Lee...but it's entirely down to me and my personal responses to his music because, as you say, it's subjective and i know I'd get nowhere discussing it with Pappy because i see what he is trying to say.  Now the statement 'Buckethead is better than Hendrix' pains me greatly, being a Hendrix fanboy as I am, I simply cannot co-sign that...but not everyones me, not everyone is incapable about being impartial about these things and approaching these things with a balanced perspective.

And i know you know what I'm talking about because we've often engaged in discussions on here, and often on the same side of an argument, and when we do we often bring up variables in support of our argument, all of which can be immediately filed under 'irrelevant' by the statement 'yeah but it's all subjective, isn't it?'.  And honestly, i don't think it has to always be subjective.  I mean for the purposes of discussion you can approach things on the basis of certain variables and come up with a conclusion that is, though not by any means definitive but as good an argument as can be put forward for one over the other.  Otherwise why bother having such discussions?

And fuck you, I'm having Axis :lol:

Edited by Len B'stard
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

 

I agree that it's a subjective thing but at the same time, if you're going to have a discussion like this then you have to start looking at certain variables with something of a clinical perspective otherwise it's just pointless, it just becomes a case of *puts on the record* 'listen...d'ya hear that?  See, thats what I'm talkin' about!' and that don't really work.  I mean it's subjective right...OK, Johnny Thunders was better than Hendrix...now lets discuss that proposition, bearing in mind now this is entirely subjective.  It just can't be argued, can it, it just becomes a matter of taste.  Johnny Ramones better than Hendrix, prove me wrong, show me where I'm wrong, whilst bearing in mind it's entirely subjective.  Sooner or later you have to get clinical about it, you have to get into shit about who could play more styles, who can solo like a motherfucker etc etc etc.

This is why i bowed out of this discussion early on cuz to me Hendrix is the dogs bollocks as guitarists go, the best of the best, the Bruce Lee...but it's entirely down to me and my personal responses to his music because, as you say, it's subjective and i know I'd get nowhere discussing it with Pappy because i see what he is trying to say.  Now the statement 'Buckethead is better than Hendrix' pains me greatly, being a Hendrix fanboy as I am, I simply cannot co-sign that...but not everyones me, not everyone is incapable about being impartial about these things and approaching these things with a balanced perspective.

And i know you know what I'm talking about because we've often engaged in discussions on here, and often on the same side of an argument, and when we do we often bring up variables in support of our argument, all of which can be immediately filed under 'irrelevant' by the statement 'yeah but it's all subjective, isn't it?'.  And honestly, i don't think it has to always be subjective.  I mean for the purposes of discussion you can approach things on the basis of certain variables and come up with a conclusion that is, though not by any means definitive but as good an argument as can be put forward for one over the other.  Otherwise why bother having such discussions?

And fuck you, I'm having Axis :lol:

You need to re-read the whole discussion. I am incorporating technique, the technique of Jimi Hendrix. Where Pap differs is he is only using technique. My basis of Jimi's skills is multi-faceted, concerning (broadly) technique, emotion, songwriting and innovation. I admit the factor of emotion, songwriting and innovation into the appraisal in other words (as well as technique since we seem to be disccusing Jimi as if he was a punk rock guitarist!!) whereas Pap - and his opinions are truly pap - restricts the conversation to mere technical ability.

Word of advice, Pappy creates straw man arguments and ignores valid points (made by me) so do not interpret me through him: always look to the post above in other words. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair i stopped reading the thread after i left it, only picked it up with the mention of Fire a page or so earlier.  And in his defence, to try and see it from his point of view, there is a lot to technique isn't there?  Like literal actual guitar playing.  The meat and potatoes of guitar playing is in the playing of it surely, what you can do with the thing.  

 

Edited by Len B'stard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

To be fair i stopped reading the thread after i left it, only picked it up with the mention of Fire a page or so earlier.

I'm not just saying ''Yeh man, Hendrix is emotional so he's better''. This is complete bollocks! At every stage I've expressed multiple reasons upon why Hendrix is superior!!

It is an absurdly straw man-esque argument.

1 minute ago, John Daker said:

How does one quantify emotion in terms of guitar playing?

I'll answer my own question. You can't.

You cannot. That is why music is a humanity and not a science.

Taking to its logical conclusion, we're all just wasting our time and musical criticism, forums and so forth, are pointless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...