If Hendrix had lived past age 27, would he have been the greatest musical force....

I agree that individual perspectives may differ depending on a number of factors. That's why in the end, you have to go with objective data, such as Billboard chart positions.

And the data simply do not support the contention that Hendrix was the benefit of a massive surge in popularity or renown following the release of the Woodstock movie. None of the post-Woodstock albums he released charted any higher than the three albums that were released prior to Woodstock.

And far from every one of the Woodstock acts becoming "household names" once the film came out, as one person here continues to insist — most of the acts who weren't already well-known prior to that enjoyed a modest uptick in sales that was not sustained over a long period of time.

 

So you are focusing here on the US market. The first basic issue I can see here is the following: did chart positions reflect well the actual number of sold units? By this I mean:

• differences between subsequent weeks - no.1 at a given week could result in a different number of units sold a month later at the top position,
• virtual popularity of short-term chart toppers put up against massive sales of long-term lower charting albums,
• splitting charts by genres, which could falsely elevate less popular artists to the virtual top,
  
• problematic pre-SoundScan algorithm evaluating chart positions according to the number of albums requested by retailers (but not actually sold).

There is a lot of modern research on how artists/bands were "creatively" promoted in those times, so I think that chart positions (or radio plays) may not fully reflect the actual scale of their popularity.

There is a famous Italian chart, frequently reproduced (even here), which shows progressive albums from the early 70s, some of them fairly obscure from a wider perspective, topping the music sales. I have read an interesting analysis, which showed the real background of the chart and how far from reality it was. Hence my points above.

 

I tried to suggest that in my post #312, but didn't get too far.

To my thinking there was more general awareness of the cultural zeitgeist in the mid-to-late-60's. I don't think Hendrix was ever on Ed Sullivan, but it was common for rock bands to perform on weekly family variety shows... mom and dad got to see the Beatles, Byrds, DC5, Stones, Doors et.al. alongside Topo Gigio and Mel Torme. A few years earlier Elvis Presley was shocking audiences (from the waist up)... pop culture had a broad reach back then.

The entertainment world became more fragmented in the decades that followed and personally, I don't know what any current music stars look like or sound like. I know the name Justin Beiber, but I don't think I could pick him out of a line-up. Same for Lady Gaga... today, it's really easy to ignore things that one is disinterested in.

The Woodstock film and soundtrack album were popular and some relatively marginal artists benefited from it, but it's being postured by Rockledge as a cultural sea change and I don't remember it that way as a high school student in suburban Chicago. As Mike has explained, young people went to see the film because they were into music and Hendrix was already huge. HUGE. If he'd headlined Altamont instead of the Rolling Stones the turnout would have been every bit as big. Only The Beatles and Bob Dylan occupied higher ground.

Classic rock bands such as The Who, The Kinks, The Byrds... they were "moderately popular" after having a few hit singles. A group like The Beach Boys probably had more name-recognition, but couldn't sell too many concert tickets after 1966. Sly & The Family Stone sold a lot of records and left a bigger impression than Hendrix in the Woodstock film, but they were also a tier below Jimi in the zeitgeist.

From 1968 until his death in 1970 Jimi Hendrix was among a select group of artists at the top of their game. Whatever degree of "household name" recognition he achieved after his death was fairly meaningless and it didn't translate into record sales or serious artistic appreciation. The business of selling old music to successive generations of rock fans became big business in the 1970's and in my memory it was spearheaded by The DOORS... The Jimi Hendrix Appreciation Society followed. The Top Ten success of Crash Landing was a surprise to the music industry.

 

It should be noted that Woodstock was not exactly the golden nugget that delivered the counter-culture to clean-cut America in a universally favorable light. Fans of rock music broadly sung it’s praises for the musical content and the portrayal of the social event’s true account. I can recall my parents being quite steadfast against me even seeing the film as a child.

While my folks hardly ever prohibited us from playing rock records, they considered the “hippie” movement to be garbage culture – and always w/warnings for us to avoid orgies, drugs and to support core morals and values (like we ever got offers to participate in any neighborhood orgies, LOL).

In almost every case within my circle of friends, our parents were conservative post war types who laughed at us for listening to “Beatle” records (all rock music was called “beatlerecords” back then).

 

Yeah. I remember the split-screen editing in Woodstock getting some attention, but it's not as if general film audiences were going to see the movie en masse. I remember my personal theatrical viewing as an all teens and early-twenties audience with some ushers walking around to make sure nobody was smoking pot.

My parents were pretty tolerant, but the politics were scary by 1970/71. I ditched school to go into Chicago for an anti-war protest and was at the Sly & Family Stone riot in Grant Park. I had a few other brushes with chaos... I guess the fact that I was getting "good grades" kept that all in perspective.

 

Yes, I'm aware that the Billboard charts (and others) may not have always perfectly reflected the realities of sales and airplay. (I would note, however, that your third point about splitting charts by genres had not yet happened, to my knowledge, in 1970. There was the Hot 100 for singles and one overall album chart, and I believe that was it.)

Still, it's a more objective measure than people's personal reminisces, which can fill in some parts of the story but may not have universal application.

 

I think that was a given already.

 

You are the hit and run champ.

 

Havens was well known on the folk scene in New York long before Woodstock.

 

Yes, and his album Richard P. Havens, 1983 was in a lot of Rock/Psych record collections.

My memories of seeing the Woodstock film aren't terribly magical. I liked Richie Havens, but after seeing him on screen I concluded that he must have been a really old guy, performing without his false teeth like that. I remember a friend commenting about the same thing as we left the theater.

 

Saying Sha Na Na, Ten Years After, Richie Havens and Santana didn't benefit from the Woodstock movie is about the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.

 

Oh to hear such a thing, remastered with all the fixins' by Steve or Kevin....

 

Havens was 28 years old when he did Woodstock. As far as his teeth or lack of I don't know why he did not fix his grill?

 

Well, I never said anything at all about Santana.

And I never said the other three "didn't benefit" from Woodstock; I said that Woodstock did not make them "household names," as one poster alleged it did for every single artist who was in the movie.

I'll put that dumbest thing up against yours any day.

 

That is a fair statement but Ten Years After were already famous in Europe and America by constant touring. By 1974 Alvin and co. had 28 tours of America more then any other British band. As far as Havens goes he was well known on the New York Folk scene but yes Woodstock made him more famous. Sha Na Na also benefited from the film bringing the 50s craze back. And Santana was a instant hit from the film and festival. The film did enhance Alvin Lee as the fastest fingers on the scene.

 

I suspect there are those who only know about Woodstock what they have read in history books.

 

Even my mother knows the Beatles, but has no idea about any act playing at Monterey, Woodstock, Altamont or Isle of Wight.

It would have surely shipped gold, but returned platinum.

 

It would have surely shipped gold, but returned platinum.[/quote]

And that's shipped gold just to Steve Hoffman forum members!

 

Even though his albums were never out of print he was pretty obscure. Radio here never played 'oldies' so I heard Angel by Rod Stewart and Little Wing by Derek & the Dominoes long before I heard Hendrix's versions (I probably heard Foxy Lady by The Cure first as well). The only time you'd hear Hendrix was on the 'album show' when albums like Hendrix in the West or Crash Landing came out. The DJ would remind us he was the greatest guitarist that ever lived play a track and them move on to the latest Tull or Mike Oldfield long player. It was like music for another generation. Until that 12" of Gloria came out they didn't even try to sell Jimi to anyone under 30 yo. Putting All Along the Watchtower in Watchmen was a much more significant event than either The Purple Box or Winterland.

 

That is interesting... On Detroit radio, Hendrix got a TON of play throughout the 1970's into the early 80's. It wasn't until the new wave craze that he fell off a bit. But he picked right back up when classic rock radio spun into high-gear. I can recall as a kid wondering if he'd be on tour to be told by my older sister that he died at the end of the 1960's. The curiosity was peaked at which time my brother and I searched out the back-story along w/the Woodstock film. We had a college garage band that played a number of his songs at neighborhood and campus raves in the 1980's. People ate it up.

 

great potted history of melbourne.

obscure? really? not in the UK or the US, as i say ..................... melbourne!

 

Hendrix was a poster, a t shirt and a tote bag in 1971. Any radio station that played oldies was playing Frankie Valli or Paul Anka and the 'progressive' stations were playing new releases. Free Four by Pink Floyd got more airplay than any song from Cry of Love.

When Dance With The Devil by Cozy Powell was a biggish hit some 'album shows' played Third Stone From The Sun to prove how hip they were.

 

I was born in 1968. By the time I started really buying rock records in the early 80s, buying and listening to Are You Experienced was still part of the rite of passage into the music for me and my friends. I don't recall Hendrix ever really going away on classic rock radio: I do distinctly remember hearing his music on FM radio in the 70s.

 

Rock Radio where I live had a policy that 'now' was the best ever time for music and every record released in the 50s and 60s was just leading up to this point. So they'd only play Satisfaction if The Stones had a new album out or Third Stone From The Sun if some English drummer ripped it off.

The soundtrack to A Film About Jimi Hendrix was pretty big here though as was the 12" of Gloria.

Australia didn't have FM radio until the late 70s.