Jimi Hendrix

[Necromancer]

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ Aug 9 2009, 11:32 AM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 10:12 AM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 9 2009, 12:47 AM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 10:00 PM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 8 2009, 09:59 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 12:11 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ Aug 8 2009, 12:52 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 10:22 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Aug 8 2009, 11:04 AM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Aug 8 2009, 09:04 AM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 01:14 PM) If I'm in the mood for distorted feed-back driven CRAP... i'll put on a Hendrix album.  Oh wait... i've NEVER wasted any money or download effort on anything by Hendrix.  He wouldn't make my top 100.  If I had to put a local garage player in the list, I would, before Hendrix.  Stop sitting on the fence Necro, tell us how you really feel!! yeah, no more sugar coating!   Necro, is it safe to say you hate all things hippie? Ummm.... yeah. Pretty much so. But it's just because all things hippie SUCK and i'm always right. I can't help that can i? Yeah Chavelle and Marylin Manson rock so much harder than that silly hippie hendrix.     Very smart post on your part.   It's all a matter of taste, but i've always been big on not caring about the past. I hated it when my parents couldn't listen to anything modern. I swore I'd never put my kids through that. Music gets better. Musicians get better. For his time... i guess Hendrix was okay. But when you listen to the shredders that I listen to, there's no comparison. Hendrix couldn't even guitar tech for guys like Dime or Kerry King. Not even an argument.   I find fascination with music of the past to be a very odd thing. Can't one of you tell me you jammed along with your parents music. So ask me WHY are you becoming the same, close-minded people you KNEW they were? Let it go. His dying made him more of a legend than had he stayed alive and continued to create the shit that he was cranking out then. He'd have been forgotten about by now had he lived. Um, dude, my mom and I both love Accept, Black Flag, hell, all kinds of metal. what now I have no idea what you mean. I'm thinking it means your mom is pretty cool and accepts modern (or moderately modern) music and isn't stuck in the "glory days" of her youth. That's cool. But still... i don't know what you're trying to say. Sorry.   I don't get the whole Hendrix thing. If he were doing his shit today, no one would care, so why the hero worship of him now? It's bizarre to me. His "talent" is questionable at best. I'll accept that he was innovative for his time, but he wasn't doing anything that wouldn't have been done by someone else eventually anyway. Clapton, Beck, Page and slews of other guitarist were already surpassing Hendrix "prowess" already. So even among his contemporaries, he wasn't "all that".   He died young and let's face it, that made him more of a legend than he'd ever have been, had he lived. Could we really have taken much more of that feedback noise he made? Seriously??? I posted that because you said "Can't one of you tell me you jammed along with your parents music." and it just so happens pretty much everything I listen to was thanks to my parents' influence, one way or another. You have relatively younger parents I'm assuming then. And also, don't forget that the group of parents I'm talking about are the ones that witnessed the actual birth of rock and roll. If they weren't quite young at the time (like mine weren't), they never accepted it.   There hasn't been too much of a leap in metal or hard rock from the days of Accept and such to today's metal scene. Except in the way of the growler type of lyrics, it's still pretty much the same music formula. So it's kinda easy for a parent who grew up with Priest or Accept to like today's metal scene. Though because of growlers, I find it hard to do at times.   Now, parents who were young during the hippy days, seem to be just like the older parents I speak of. They hated their parents music, but they couldn't move on with the times and accept the changes in music, as they came along. They still try to claim that their era of "rock" was the best. I can't buy that or get on board with that at all. Most of them were stoned or high on something during that period, which reflects the appreciation for trippy music. Even if they are clean now, they still have that reminiscence feel towards it, which explains the huge success of classic rock stations.   Some music stands the test of time. I still love classic Rush, probably moreso than most of their modern era stuff. I used to be a HUGE Zeppelin fan, but after hearing them enough and not getting any new stuff out of them... they became part of the past for me. Same with Sabbath. I could give a rat's ass if I ever hear Paranoid or Iron Man again, and they are the two songs that created me as a metal-head. I just don't get the holding on to the past aspect of musical appreciation. Not when there is so much great music out there that blows away all the so-called classic greats.   I would much rather listen to synth pop of the 80's over classic rock. So i should cancel that Lava Lamp i was going to be bring too the TRF Christmas swap this year? Lava lamps are cool. Just none of that ridiculous tie-dye shit.

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 10:12 AM)

I would much rather listen to synth pop of the 80's over classic rock.

Is "classic rock" an actual genre? I thought it was just a lazy DJ term for any music they recocognise as "rock" that's older than about 1988 and that includes punk, metal, prog whatever. In this "genre" they lump bands like The Eagles and Journey in with The Ramones and the Sex Pistols, and Black Sabbath and Judas Priest, that can't be right can it? Date of release seems to be the most important distinction. Maybe it's an American thing. I don't get it though and never ue the term..

 

[southernjim]

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 12:34 PM)

QUOTE (Xanadoood @ Aug 9 2009, 11:32 AM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 10:12 AM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 9 2009, 12:47 AM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 10:00 PM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 8 2009, 09:59 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 12:11 PM) QUOTE (Xanadoood @ Aug 8 2009, 12:52 PM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 10:22 AM) QUOTE (tangy @ Aug 8 2009, 11:04 AM) QUOTE (Hatchetaxe&saw @ Aug 8 2009, 09:04 AM) QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 8 2009, 01:14 PM) If I'm in the mood for distorted feed-back driven CRAP... i'll put on a Hendrix album.  Oh wait... i've NEVER wasted any money or download effort on anything by Hendrix.  He wouldn't make my top 100.  If I had to put a local garage player in the list, I would, before Hendrix.  Stop sitting on the fence Necro, tell us how you really feel!! yeah, no more sugar coating!   Necro, is it safe to say you hate all things hippie? Ummm.... yeah. Pretty much so. But it's just because all things hippie SUCK and i'm always right. I can't help that can i? Yeah Chavelle and Marylin Manson rock so much harder than that silly hippie hendrix.     Very smart post on your part.   It's all a matter of taste, but i've always been big on not caring about the past. I hated it when my parents couldn't listen to anything modern. I swore I'd never put my kids through that. Music gets better. Musicians get better. For his time... i guess Hendrix was okay. But when you listen to the shredders that I listen to, there's no comparison. Hendrix couldn't even guitar tech for guys like Dime or Kerry King. Not even an argument.   I find fascination with music of the past to be a very odd thing. Can't one of you tell me you jammed along with your parents music. So ask me WHY are you becoming the same, close-minded people you KNEW they were? Let it go. His dying made him more of a legend than had he stayed alive and continued to create the shit that he was cranking out then. He'd have been forgotten about by now had he lived. Um, dude, my mom and I both love Accept, Black Flag, hell, all kinds of metal. what now I have no idea what you mean. I'm thinking it means your mom is pretty cool and accepts modern (or moderately modern) music and isn't stuck in the "glory days" of her youth. That's cool. But still... i don't know what you're trying to say. Sorry.   I don't get the whole Hendrix thing. If he were doing his shit today, no one would care, so why the hero worship of him now? It's bizarre to me. His "talent" is questionable at best. I'll accept that he was innovative for his time, but he wasn't doing anything that wouldn't have been done by someone else eventually anyway. Clapton, Beck, Page and slews of other guitarist were already surpassing Hendrix "prowess" already. So even among his contemporaries, he wasn't "all that".   He died young and let's face it, that made him more of a legend than he'd ever have been, had he lived. Could we really have taken much more of that feedback noise he made? Seriously??? I posted that because you said "Can't one of you tell me you jammed along with your parents music." and it just so happens pretty much everything I listen to was thanks to my parents' influence, one way or another. You have relatively younger parents I'm assuming then. And also, don't forget that the group of parents I'm talking about are the ones that witnessed the actual birth of rock and roll. If they weren't quite young at the time (like mine weren't), they never accepted it.   There hasn't been too much of a leap in metal or hard rock from the days of Accept and such to today's metal scene. Except in the way of the growler type of lyrics, it's still pretty much the same music formula. So it's kinda easy for a parent who grew up with Priest or Accept to like today's metal scene. Though because of growlers, I find it hard to do at times.   Now, parents who were young during the hippy days, seem to be just like the older parents I speak of. They hated their parents music, but they couldn't move on with the times and accept the changes in music, as they came along. They still try to claim that their era of "rock" was the best. I can't buy that or get on board with that at all. Most of them were stoned or high on something during that period, which reflects the appreciation for trippy music. Even if they are clean now, they still have that reminiscence feel towards it, which explains the huge success of classic rock stations.   Some music stands the test of time. I still love classic Rush, probably moreso than most of their modern era stuff. I used to be a HUGE Zeppelin fan, but after hearing them enough and not getting any new stuff out of them... they became part of the past for me. Same with Sabbath. I could give a rat's ass if I ever hear Paranoid or Iron Man again, and they are the two songs that created me as a metal-head. I just don't get the holding on to the past aspect of musical appreciation. Not when there is so much great music out there that blows away all the so-called classic greats.   I would much rather listen to synth pop of the 80's over classic rock. So i should cancel that Lava Lamp i was going to be bring too the TRF Christmas swap this year? Lava lamps are cool. Just none of that ridiculous tie-dye shit. Tie-Dye Lava Lamp

[southernjim]

Damaged is about the essential Black Flag. I don't listen to any of their stuff without Henry Rollins though, so I'm kinda biased.

[Test4VitalSigns]

I for one don't buy that just because music is old or new that one should listen to it or not listen to it based on that. IMO good music is good music regardless of when it was created.

 

I hate the terms "It was before my time" or "all the music today is crap". It's bullshit. I judge how good the music is based on its merits alone. Not what year it came out. Sure some songs seem dated but I feel that is the exception and not the rule. Regardless the song is either good or bad.

 

 

 

HENDRIX ROCKS! Whether he came out in 1965 or 2000 I dont' care

Edited August 9, 2009 by Test4VitalSigns

[treeduck]

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Aug 9 2009, 04:06 PM)

I for one don't buy that just because music is old or new that one should listen to it or not listen to it based on that.  IMO good music is good music regardless of when it was created. I hate the terms "It was before my time" or "all the music today is crap".  It's bullshit.  I based how good the music based on its merits alone.  Not what year it came out.  Sure some songs seem dated but I feel that is the exception and not the rule. HENDRIX ROCKS!  Whether he came out in 1965 or 2000 I dont' care

I agree, if you like how something sounds why would you care what date it was released? Unless you have some kind of agenda. If you like how it sounds, you like how it sounds, if you don't, then you don't. The date should have nothing to do with it, whether the music is brand new or from the 1950s...

Edited August 9, 2009 by treeduck

[Steevo]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 10 2009, 09:13 AM)

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Aug 9 2009, 04:06 PM) I for one don't buy that just because music is old or new that one should listen to it or not listen to it based on that.  IMO good music is good music regardless of when it was created. I hate the terms "It was before my time" or "all the music today is crap".  It's bullshit.  I based how good the music based on its merits alone.  Not what year it came out.  Sure some songs seem dated but I feel that is the exception and not the rule. HENDRIX ROCKS!  Whether he came out in 1965 or 2000 I dont' care  I agree, if you like how something sounds why would you care what date it was released? Unless you have some kind of agenda. If you like how it sounds, you like how it sounds, if you don't, then you don't. The date should have nothing to do with it, whether the music is brand new or from the 1950s... Come on, isn't this all pretty obvious? Good music stands alone, end of fukking discussion blah blah. Next.

[ReRushed]

There is only good and bad music. Hendrix is good music.

[Xanadu93]

QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 9 2009, 03:56 PM)

Damaged is about the essential Black Flag. I don't listen to any of their stuff without Henry Rollins though, so I'm kinda biased.

There's actually like six copies of that at Hot Topic for only $9.99, but I spent a lot of my money this week, so I'll probably pick it up next week.

[Rush!]

QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ Aug 8 2009, 10:37 PM)

QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 8 2009, 09:59 PM) Um, dude, my mom and I both love Accept, Black Flag, hell, all kinds of metal.     what now Your post reminds me that I need to get some more Black Flag. So far I've got Family Man (it's pretty good, though I need to listen to it a lot more, though), what should I go with next?   This is off-topic I know, but..... For Black Flag, the albums Damaged and My War are their two most essential.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Rush!

[Steevo]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 10 2009, 10:10 AM)

There is only good and bad music.  Hendrix is good music.

We differ here and there Rerushed but it's hard to argue with you on this one

 

It's cool to dislike him all you want, actually I encourage it, I just don't get the lack of appreciation of such an obvious musical genius that's all. I don't particulary like Miles Davis or Coltrane but its patently clear they're all in the same ballpark as pioneers and you HAVE to give them heaps of credit for that alone. "There is only good and bad music"...hmmm, guess who said that?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Steevo

[troutman]

QUOTE (treeduck @ Aug 9 2009, 01:13 PM)

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Aug 9 2009, 04:06 PM) I for one don't buy that just because music is old or new that one should listen to it or not listen to it based on that.  IMO good music is good music regardless of when it was created. I hate the terms "It was before my time" or "all the music today is crap".  It's bullshit.  I based how good the music based on its merits alone.  Not what year it came out.  Sure some songs seem dated but I feel that is the exception and not the rule. HENDRIX ROCKS!  Whether he came out in 1965 or 2000 I dont' care  I agree, if you like how something sounds why would you care what date it was released? Unless you have some kind of agenda. If you like how it sounds, you like how it sounds, if you don't, then you don't. The date should have nothing to do with it, whether the music is brand new or from the 1950s... You are both spot on!!

[Shifty]

[Necromancer]

[Necromancer]

[Test4VitalSigns]

Sorry dude there is no way you can convince me Kerry King and Dime were better guitar players than Jimi

[Test4VitalSigns]

Also I don't buy into the hype or legend stuff...for anyone....I purely based it all on his actual material and not what anyone else says.

[southernjim]

QUOTE (Rush! @ Aug 9 2009, 06:02 PM)

QUOTE (Xanadu93 @ Aug 8 2009, 10:37 PM) QUOTE (southernjim @ Aug 8 2009, 09:59 PM) Um, dude, my mom and I both love Accept, Black Flag, hell, all kinds of metal.     what now Your post reminds me that I need to get some more Black Flag. So far I've got Family Man (it's pretty good, though I need to listen to it a lot more, though), what should I go with next?   This is off-topic I know, but..... For Black Flag, the albums Damaged and My War are their two most essential. Henry Rollins for President!

[Test4VitalSigns]

All this Jimi talk has got me cranking one of my fav jams by him

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmc939cz3bU

[ReRushed]

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 09:57 PM)

But at least back up your position on the matter. It seems that all anyone's done since I made my original anti-Hendrix statement, has been to attack that statement. But no one has offerred me one good reason as to WHY i'm wrong. Simply because no one CAN. You've all fell victim to the bullshit belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did. Fine, but I know guys that unfortunately only play in clubs that blow Hendrix off the stage. Continue your forced worship at the alter of false musical "gods".

Hendrix was an innovator. He defined what rock guitarists do with the guitar. He incorporated the dreaded feedback noise with melody and fluidity.

 

He, along with the Beatles and Zappa, pushed the boundaries of the recording studio, incorporating a myriad of effects and techniques that today are taken for granted.

 

Like many pioneering artists, what Hendrix did is lost today because of familiarity and imitation. Place him in context and nobody moved the art of rock guitar forward more than him. He did a lot of things first, you can't take that away from him, even if you personally like other guitarist better.

 

Yes, many guitarists after him played faster and with more technical ability, but that's because that's pretty much all that's left to do with rock guitar.

 

Also, you're wrong because your arguments are based on arrogance and assumption. You make a statement like the "belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did" and blanket it across whoever is debating you. You can't assume it's true and it's arrogant to do so. It's a straw man argument, which you're very good at, by the way!.

 

Necromancer, the master straw man!

[Blenderhead]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 9 2009, 09:34 PM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 09:57 PM) But at least back up your position on the matter.  It seems that all anyone's done since I made my original anti-Hendrix statement, has been to attack that statement.  But no one has offerred me one good reason as to WHY i'm wrong.  Simply because no one CAN.  You've all fell victim to the bullshit belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did.  Fine, but I know guys that unfortunately only play in clubs that blow Hendrix off the stage.  Continue your forced worship at the alter of false musical "gods".  Hendrix was an innovator. He defined what rock guitarists do with the guitar. He incorporated the dreaded feedback noise with melody and fluidity.   He, along with the Beatles and Zappa, pushed the boundaries of the recording studio, incorporating a myriad of effects and techniques that today are taken for granted.   Like many pioneering artists, what Hendrix did is lost today because of familiarity and imitation. Place him in context and nobody moved the art of rock guitar forward more than him. He did a lot of things first, you can't take that away from him, even if you personally like other guitarist better.   Yes, many guitarists after him played faster and with more technical ability, but that's because that's pretty much all that's left to do with rock guitar.   Also, you're wrong because your arguments are based on arrogance and assumption. You make a statement like the "belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did" and blanket it across whoever is debating you. You can't assume it's true and it's arrogant to do so. It's a straw man argument, which you're very good at, by the way!.   Necromancer, the master straw man!   And I don't even like Jimi Hendrix.

[Xanadoood]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 9 2009, 09:34 PM)

QUOTE (Necromancer @ Aug 9 2009, 09:57 PM) But at least back up your position on the matter.  It seems that all anyone's done since I made my original anti-Hendrix statement, has been to attack that statement.  But no one has offerred me one good reason as to WHY i'm wrong.  Simply because no one CAN.  You've all fell victim to the bullshit belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did.  Fine, but I know guys that unfortunately only play in clubs that blow Hendrix off the stage.  Continue your forced worship at the alter of false musical "gods".  Hendrix was an innovator. He defined what rock guitarists do with the guitar. He incorporated the dreaded feedback noise with melody and fluidity.   He, along with the Beatles and Zappa, pushed the boundaries of the recording studio, incorporating a myriad of effects and techniques that today are taken for granted.   Like many pioneering artists, what Hendrix did is lost today because of familiarity and imitation. Place him in context and nobody moved the art of rock guitar forward more than him. He did a lot of things first, you can't take that away from him, even if you personally like other guitarist better.   Yes, many guitarists after him played faster and with more technical ability, but that's because that's pretty much all that's left to do with rock guitar.   Also, you're wrong because your arguments are based on arrogance and assumption. You make a statement like the "belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did" and blanket it across whoever is debating you. You can't assume it's true and it's arrogant to do so. It's a straw man argument, which you're very good at, by the way!.   Necromancer, the master straw man!   We can also look at someone like Van Halen. 30 years ago he was blowing peoples minds with the techniques he brought to the rock guitar world. Today those same techniques you can see being played by hundreds of unknown dudes on youtube. Even by the end of the 80s , guys were surpassing him at his own game. Does that make him less significant? Of course not.   Hendrix was a true pioneer and the praise he has gotten from other musicians, not just guitarists, is all you need to look at.

[troutman]

I love Hendrix. He was such a force in his day!! It's like saying Babe Ruth setting the home run record means nothing at this point.

[Steevo]

QUOTE (troutman @ Aug 10 2009, 03:30 PM)

I love Hendrix.   He was such a force in his day!!   It's like saying Babe Ruth setting the home run record means nothing at this point.

Nah he was just about feedback and hung out with hippies, what an overated load of rubbish. Aint hindsight grand.

[Rush Cocky]

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Aug 9 2009, 10:34 PM)

Hendrix was an innovator. He defined what rock guitarists do with the guitar. He incorporated the dreaded feedback noise with melody and fluidity. He, along with the Beatles and Zappa, pushed the boundaries of the recording studio, incorporating a myriad of effects and techniques that today are taken for granted. Like many pioneering artists, what Hendrix did is lost today because of familiarity and imitation. Place him in context and nobody moved the art of rock guitar forward more than him. He did a lot of things first, you can't take that away from him, even if you personally like other guitarist better. Yes, many guitarists after him played faster and with more technical ability, but that's because that's pretty much all that's left to do with rock guitar. Also, you're wrong because your arguments are based on arrogance and assumption. You make a statement like the "belief that "classic rock" stars are the BEST at whatever they did" and blanket it across whoever is debating you. You can't assume it's true and it's arrogant to do so. It's a straw man argument, which you're very good at, by the way! Necromancer, the master straw man!

 

Best post of the thread, right here.