-
In summation, I think this covers it all -- including many of the excerpted comments of other celebrities posted: Hans Christian Andersen: The Emperor?s New Suit
-
11-29-2011 05:54 AM
-
Yngwein...Hendrix...Harrison. They don't even use the proper foot stool!
Let's all laugh at them from our winter country estates. Hahahaha. Bring me some lavish tea.
-
I know in most towns, you could get more gigs playing Hendrix covers than you could playing Coltrane. I think this harsh reality is what makes most jazz lovers so bitter.
Originally Posted by mattymel
It's not like a jazz magazine voted Hendrix #1 so I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about lol.
-
It was quite thrilling and shocking. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Interesting reminiscence that Jazzpunk dug up. I think John McLaughlin is right, and it's a fascinating glimpse into the life of Jimi Hendrix. If I remember rightly, Hendrix, at the time of his death, was going to work with jazz arrranger Gil Evans.
It boggles my mind to think what could have been.
-
I'd say it goes double for the comments from members who will never have either the talent nor career that Hendrix had. That new suit sure looks good in the mirror though! Originally Posted by cjm
-
Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
BULLSEYE!
everybody knows jazz is hard. the issue is, nobody cares. and i think if tables were turned and anybody here had to play a 10 minute solo over one chord ala "machine gun", it would quickly become apparent who REALLY knows more about music.
even bird said that "one day we'll all just go back to playing the blues." maybe the problem is that nobody ever did.
-
Wes. Originally Posted by mattymel
I like Hendrix, and I like Chuck Berry, but I wouldn't get carried away and start comparing them to Jazz greats. Hendrix had 4 or 5 licks. Coltrane, or Wes for that matter had 5000, and even then chose not to use them for the most part... perspective, gentlemen, pleeeze....
-
PP...
frankly, i think you need to listen to more hendrix. 4 licks???!!! i hear NO licks in the solo i posted, which is the WHOLE point. blues scales and pentatonics YES...but saying they are 4 licks is the equivalent of saying wes used 2 scales. and truth be told, 95% of what wes plays on a blues can be broken into roughly 80% 8th notes, 15% triplets and 5% quarter notes. id like to see you (or any other brave soul) notate that hendrix solo i posted...
just sayin...back up what you say...please
wes is one of my main influences and i have transcribed a bunch, but what you are saying is nonsense.Last edited by mattymel; 11-29-2011 at 10:01 PM.
-
People are applauding Hendrix for things (showmanship, playing the guitar behind his back) that Jimi himself realized, at the end of his life, was perhaps a bit over the top.
He wanted to grow and mature as a musician and had two more serious possibilities lined up, beyond the Band of Gypsies. The project with Keith Emerson, Greg Lake, and possibly Mitch Mitchell was one.
the other one was with Gil Evans. I think Evans may have even chided Jimi for his showmanship, and that may have convinced Jimi to take it more seriously.
Alas, we know he never got the chance to work on these projects.
By the way, Gil Evans released a fantastic big band album of Hendrix tunes in the mid 70s. Well worth checking out.
As always, the lingua franca was the blues. But this was something that Bird himself mentioned to a young BB King many decades before. It was always about the blues.
-
"Cover of the Rolling Stone" isn't so impressive these days...
PJ
-
Yeah? You'd probably give your left nut to be on it. Originally Posted by P.J.
-
+1 Originally Posted by Banksia
I took up guitar largely to pretend I was Jimmy Hendrix. Didn't fool anyone though.
He is an icon and he got a really beautiful sound out of a strat! For me his strat sound is even better then Stevie Ray Vaughan.
-
Wes was the one. He set the bar so high for jazz guitar. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Wes.
I like Hendrix, and I like Chuck Berry, but I wouldn't get carried away and start comparing them to Jazz greats. Hendrix had 4 or 5 licks. Coltrane, or Wes for that matter had 5000, and even then chose not to use them for the most part... perspective, gentlemen, pleeeze....
It is funny how the "greatest guitarist of all time" is always some rock 'n roll guy. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy Hendrix's playing from time to time. But these magazines should have the decency to be genre specific. Greatest rock guitarist of all time, well that's closer. But I mean in terms of phrasing, time and musical intelligence, Wes still was and is heads above others. He never suffered from overplaying and primitive showman stuff like Hendrix at times would during live performances, or this Malmsteen guy who runs up and down the harmonic minor scale all day.
-
You guys are getting silly with comparisons now. Jimi was amazing, Wes was amazing, both in their own way. Why not let it go at that? Who cares what a totally irrelevant magazine like Rolling Stone says? As as far as being on the cover, I'll happily keep my left nut thank you.
-
jimi to wes.
apples to oranges.
when people buy a rolling stone they know they are reading about pop/rock.
when people buy a jazz times they know they are reading about jazz.
if you cant figure that out...
jimi dug wes. and im sure it would have been mutual.
-
This magazine is for a rock audience. Yes I know, as guitarists we all do the eye roll when someone corners us in a smoking room to tell us how great hendrix was after we played note perfect a django solo its taken us two weeks to listen and play. Just keep that in mind. You have knowledge others don't, and the best thing to do is be gracious and let them think what you know is not true.
Believe me, it only takes trying to tell a drunk person once '...well actually Hendrix was good, for rock and roll, but he wasn't great and was actually telling anyone who would listen he was done with rock and trying to move into jazz when he died.'
Now I will say this! If Hendrix hadn't died and did take like two years off drugs and drink and studied jazz like say Harrison studied classical indian music, I have no doubt Jimi would have been one of the greatest players in history. He's got all the requirements, perfect hear, dead on timing, already played with swing, almost every hendrix solo has a tight little swing on it. The Wind Cries Mary, that is swinging tune.
But remember this is Rolling Stone, it is not a musician's magazine. It is a popular magazine looking to sell print, it's not a trade journal. It(along with Guitarworld, which has no excuse)constantly turns out this 'greatest guitar lists' in which the no 1 spot moves between hendrix, vaugh, and allman, page, and beck(when they want to feign street cred). It's meaningless...like most things in America, it's just advertising.
-
I think my post was misinterpreted. It was the statement "greatest guitarist of all time" that bothered me, like it always does because it implies comparison to guitarists in all genres. If we're going to play it dirty then I think that comparing Hendrix to guitarists of other genres, Wes in jazz, Paco De Lucia in flamenco etc... it is pointless. Jimi had his sound, and it was limited, but he did a lot with what he knew. There are jazz players and classical players who have ten times the vocabulary and repertoire. So it is a pointless battle. I love listening to Jimi every now and then, but lets not go overboard and call him greatest guitarist of all time.
I'd like these magazines to rephrase their bold statements to "best rock guitarist of all time" if they have to make it into a competition.
And thats the problem in the first place. They throw the gauntlet to begin with.
-
Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
I think I understood you. I was just saying when they say 'all time' that's just advertising. First of all guitar has been around a long time. It's ridiculous to even first assume you could compile all the guitarists in history, let alone set about some objective ordering of their skills.
All I'm saying is Rolling Stone is selling a magazine to teenagers and teeny boppers. A demographic that probably doesn't know who Segovia or Montgomery or Pass or Reinhardt are, let alone Carulli.
So I mean it's advertising. "look the greatest guitartists of all time are all in your ipod!"
Not 'hey you dumb @$$ philistin!'
It's ridiculous, not getting political or making any comments towards the value of the men, but it's like when people say Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan were 'great presidents.' Objectively that's a ridiculous statement. No matter how much you like them personally. But people like the feel the things they like are valid, objectively, and great because liking great things makes you great. And magazines seeking profit, do so by telling you, 'yeah this magazine you pay 50 bucks a year for is worth it because look we went out and found all the great stuff and guess what? it's all the stuff you like! arent you grand? wont you renew your subscription?"Last edited by ejwhite09; 12-05-2011 at 05:20 PM.
-
For getting it out there, there was no greater. You know what I'm talking about. And that's why he's number one.
Last edited by Buster Loaf; 12-05-2011 at 06:08 PM.
-
I don't see a lot of bitterness but you sure are tossing out a lot of anger. What a waste an emotional investment...arguing on a web page. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
-
Fair enough. Originally Posted by ejwhite09
But why is it socially acceptable to point out something like that -- in other words -- that pop culture is superficial and commercialized, and that the Rolling Stone panders to a pop culture audience...but not okay to suggest that pop culture's most iconic "artists" are not necessarily very good artists?
-
Originally Posted by cjm
Fair enough.
But why is it socially acceptable to point out something like that -- in other words -- that pop culture is superficial and commercialized, and that the Rolling Stone panders to a pop culture audience...but not okay to suggest that pop culture's most iconic "artists" are not necessarily very good artists?
It's equally ok to to point it out. I'm just saying why waste time explaining quantum physics to a dog
Rolling Stone is out make money and they aren't going to make money telling people who are into superficial commercialized music, well really you're an idiot because everyone you think is great, with rare exception, is just the product of very strategic and expensive marketing campaigns...like, you only believe jimi hendrix is the greatest guitar player ever because we've been telling your whole life he is the greatest guitar player...its like call and response.
But I think looking for social responsibility in pop culture magazines is going to be a fool's errand.Last edited by ejwhite09; 12-05-2011 at 06:50 PM. Reason: sp
-
Jeez...he was undeniable one of the greatest ROCK guitarists to ever pick up a guitar. No one said he could play Django. Just like no one should say Django could play like Hendrix. That's just the fact. I could care less about what Rolling Stone has to say about it.
The fact that so many jazzers (and Im not talking jazz forum dwellers) talk about Hendrix says it all. The guy was going to be in Miles' band for crying out loud. What does that tell you?
-
He liked coke and white girls Originally Posted by mattymel
Reply With Quote
Loar Vs. Samick (Tone Examples)
Today, 12:29 PM in The Songs