Jimi Hendrix - Cultural icon, or just lucky?

Off the back of another thread i thought it'd be good to start a debate about Jimi Hendrix.

Now, a few years ago I caused uproar on a guitar forum when I begged to differ about Hendrix as a guitarist. My opinion was as follows. At the time (The 60's) Hendrix was a shot of adrenaline to the music scene, he changed the way a guitar could be played and other guitarists rightly so were in awe of him.. Clapton and Townshend to name just 2. However with the passage of time we've had other guitarists who's come along that in my mind are technically better. Satriani, Vai and Petrucci are virtuoso players that technically play better than Hendrix.

As you can imagine this caused a stir on the forum as I dared to not brown nose Hendrix, but to me he was a pioneer that moved the goal posts, then other guitarists such as the aforementioned Satriani, Vai and Petrucci came along with the likes of Van Halen took what Hendrix did and took it to another level. Without Hendrix showing them the way they likely wouldn't have progressed.

To me Hendrix wasn't a cultural icon, he was in the right place at the right time playing weird guitar..... No mojo, no deal with the devil.... just plain lucky. Obvioulsy now we look back on Hendrix in reverence, but why?

He was a guitar player that knew blues scales, could play pretty fluidly, with wah wah pedals and fuzz face pedals and the odd Uni-vibe for good measure.... A lot of what he did was based around the fact he played with feedback to get the sustain he needed to sound good. Basically he turned everything up to 11, and played with the end result..... The end result was excellent, and totally different for the time.... But in this day and age doesn't sound too far out there IMHO.

I love Hendrix, I find a lot of his albums though a bit hit and miss...... There's some songs on Electric Ladyland I can't listen to (Little Miss Strange). Do his albums deserve to be classed as classic albums in the true sense??....... There's not a Sgt Pepper, or Dark Side among them, so i don't think so.

 

Electric Ladyland is better than the two albums you cited.

 

That is just your opinion which you're entitled to..... But is it a genuine bonafide classic culturally?

 

Hahahaha. The OP is an opinion too.
Sooooooo...

:—)

 

Exactly... We all have opinions..... Just interested in others opinions

 

but you cant take an artist out of his time.....and if jimi created the landscape and others were doing paint by numbers till someone else drew outside the lines it still comes from him. he deserves all the accolades he gets. I cannot abide with this premise

 

From a musician standpoint I think Hendrix is miles ahead of the other guitarists mentioned simply because he was a great songwriter and interpreter of other people's songs too. I think most would struggle to name a single track by Vai or Satriani - technique for the sake of it.
Culturally he is almost as important as he is musically - he was a black man in a white world but still set it alight!

 

A few days ago I watched Jimi playing "Voodoo Chile" at Woodstock. Go have a look.

Besides, what does "in this day and age" mean? In this day and age, a corded telephone is pretty ho-hum. But it was a freakin' marvel when Alexander Graham Bell invented it. He was not just "in the right place at the right time". Closer to home, there are lots of electric guitars that are technical marvels, and four or eight track recording is pretty primative, but Les Paul invented the solid body guitar and multi-track recording and is most definitely a cultural icon.

You can't judge Hendrix in terms of what is being done fifty years after his death. You have to put yourself in 1967 and look around at what was being done at that time. Are you going to judge the Model T poorly because it doesn't have cruise control?

 

Ok, but why do other recent guitarists who are 'better' consider Hendrix as 'the best'?

 

Jimi had way more than just luck on his side.

1. His skills in songwriting and arrangement are timeless. This is why over 50 years after he committed to tape what was in his head is still relevant.

2. His Rhythm playing technique is harder to master than his lead playing. This is why many people overlook it and go straight to the fuzzed out feedback. The phrasing of triads coupled with his thumb technique was very important to his sound and Jimi mastered this better than anyone. Listen & watch Woodstock improvisation to get a taste of his mastery in this field.

3. He wrote, sang, produced and arranged all his own material way before most other folks. He was more on par with Miles David than anyone in the Rock field of the time. You only have to look at all the countless polls over the years to see who comes out leagues above any other guitarists and rightly so.

They are just 3 points I can think of that will stand against what you say. It is impossible to judge the genius of a guy that died 20 years before new talent comes along and updated where he left off. Granted those players you quoted are technically faster but they did not say a quarter of what Jimi said in 3 years. They came out the gate guns blazing with their new improved technique and stayed that way their in entire career, nothing new.

Electric Ladyland is one of the best albums released in the 60s. In my opinion is way better the Dark Side & Peppers combined.
PS
None of this is meant as an insult on your opinion, only enlightenment. We are all allowed one.

 

Hendrix was raw talent.

 

Even when Hendrix was alive there were other guitarists who technically played better than Hendrix. But that's not what made Hendrix an amazing guitar player, it was the total package. Hendrix was also a great songwriter, creating wonderful guitar-based songs. He was an innovator and used technology to push the guitar further. He never was about finger dexterity.

Just because it doesn't sound too far out nowadays doesn't mean that it isn't great. You might even say that that is exactly part of its greatness, how it has shaped the music of today. That is not (just) luck, that is part greatness as well as just pushing things forward without any quality does not result in influence. So yes, he rightly is a cultural icon.

 

A lot of musicians who played with Jimi claim to have taught him things. The late Terry Kath was one of those people. Jimi was a fast learner and innovated things he learned from others.

Jimi Hendrix was doing things no one else had done, and, to this day, still haven't done.

 

His music speaks for itself and has and will continue to survive those who create stirs on internet forums.

 

Thank god Jimi didn't dedicate his short time here to learning to be 'technically' proficient. Instead, he mastered conveying emotions in his music. Using the guitar to show us something much more interesting than how fast a scale can be played.

 

Died aged 27 and now imitators steal him blind! Seriously, how 'lucky' can one man get ??

Can't believe this thread.

 

Music is art, not sport. Hendrix was an artist, Satriani is an athlete.

*removes spectacles, rubs bridge of nose*

 

May as well shut this thread down now.

Hendrix's true genius resided in his left hand -- rhythmically -- in conjunction with the fretting techniques (right hand) described above.

Nobody ever touched him. Nobody ever will.

 

I feel like you could pose this question about a number of famous artists. It just doesn’t seem right to me. Hendrix was deserving of his fame and is deserving of his legacy.

 

Let me count the memorable songs Vai and Satriani have composed...None. But let's rate Satriani, Vai and Eddie as vocalists...shut up guys!
But as least they have a great image and style...uh noooo.
As already mentioned the thing with Hendrix was that he was the complete package, not how fast he could play triplets. That's a really dumb OP.

 

Not sure. Those first three albums kick ass, though.

 

Talent, "luck" has nothing to do with it.

 

Not to mention Hendrix was a pioneer. Those other "shredders" would still be trying to figure it out, were it not for Hendrix's inventiveness.

 

That you don't love Hendrix isn't really worth debating, I'd say. I love him, as a guitarist, songwriter, singer, performer, etc.

Technique is just as subjective as anything else, by the way. And it has as much to do with, say, the way that someone plays a sustained single note or a single chord--including things like the exact timing, timbre/tone, vibrato, etc., as it has to do with anything else. I wouldn't put anyone above Hendrix as a guitarist technically --although there are some I'd put on par with him (and mostly not folks you'd think, though EVH is one of them). If you don't like Hendrix as much that's fine. He doesn't connect with you near as much as some other folks do. That's the whole gist of different tastes. Focus on the stuff you like best, and be careful not to project your tastes as if they're objective facts.

 

Sounds like it!

You enjoy listening to Vai, Satriani and Patrucci's classic albums. All none of them!