Jimi Hendrix Named Greatest Guitarist Of All Time By Rolling Stone

[fumblefingers]

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?

it tells me that Miles turned toward rock.

after meeting Hendrix he wanted to play stadiums - not clubs. or at least that's what his son says in his book about his father.

[fumblefingers]

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?

great question. here's one answer at least...

because most people have very unsophisticated tastes, like simple popular stuff, identify with it, and are thus insulted when someone runs it down.

who was it that said something about... throwing your pearls before swine?

[cjm]

great question. here's one answer at least...

because most people have very unsophisticated tastes, like simple popular stuff, identify with it, and are thus insulted when someone runs it down.

who was it that said something about... throwing your pearls before swine?

Well...sure. If we're talking about the Rolling Stone's readership, that's to be expected.

But I'm thinking more about a jazz audience. Some one opines that a well known jazzer is, shall we say, sub par -- and that doesn't seem to elicit the passionate -- and defensive -- responses that suggesting that a rocker who gnawed his guitar in live performance might be less than the world's greatest guitarist gets.

[backliner]

Besides the question of "best" and all that, Henrix was after something to get him to the next level in his own artistry.

The Woodstock footage of him (just released) on DVD shows his whole Woodstock performance.

During a couple of songs in his set he does something Be-boppers were doing as they developed their genre: He employs "doubling up" the rhythmic pace of his phrasing, a bit like Charlie Parker did.

He can be seen in this new footage clearly stretching out and trying to break through to the next level. He is held back somewhat by his backing musicians, who can't keep up, but it seems evident to me he's the father of "shredding."

Somehow (I may be fooling myself) it seems like he's stretching out and reaching for some new level of expression, and he's using speed and trying to double up the energy.

It's like he's trying to smash atoms to release the energy.

Naturally, his concept and harmony sense are not developed in a jazz way: he comes from blues. But he does manage to pull off some interesting harmonizations at the end of the performance, after the release of the bombast that was the Star Spangled Banner.

I'm not trying to be an apologist for Jimi Hendrix, or the spectacle of his showmanship. But perhaps if he had lived and spent some time with Miles Davis, he may have been able to bring something to the jazz party, in time.

[Jazzpunk]

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.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Do you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

[mattymel]

it tells me that Miles turned toward rock.

after meeting Hendrix he wanted to play stadiums - not clubs. or at least that's what his son says in his book about his father.

i guess i don't see anything wrong with that. anymore than herbie doing the headhunters thing, wayne...weather report, return to forever, mahavishnu, lifetime...etc...there is a lot of amazing music there.

i WOULD venture to say that Hendrix had a HUGE impact on the jazz scene in that way. ALL the best musicians turned up the amps, bought the same pedals, got out of the jazz clubs, grew afros...and...somehow started making better money. go figure. theres no denying the influence.

i don't think its any secret that Miles (the quintessential trendsetter) wanted Hendrix in his band for more than economic reasons. if you listen to Pangea, Agharta, even Live Evil, etc...tell me there isnt Hendrix inspired guitar playing...

I've heard enough Jimi to know that when he WAS ON, he could totally HANG with what Miles was doing in that period. sadly we'll just have to imagine what it might have been. there is an interview when mclaughlin is talking about hanging with Miles and talking about Hendrix and John asks him what he likes about him..."its that mother@in' "machine gun". I'm right there with miles on that one.

for me, its as close to trane on the guitar that i have heard.

[cjm]

i WOULD venture to say that Hendrix had a HUGE impact on the jazz scene in that way.

Hendrix did have a huge effect on the jazz scene.

But it is not what you think it was.

In a nutshell, Hendrix (among others) caused some jazz musicians to decide to dumb down the music and begin exploiting the cult of personality for commercial purposes.

The dumbed down music made some money -- which...hey, everybody has to eat. But that brings up questions as to where aesthetics and the ethics of art intersect with a pure profit motive.

It wasn't long after this took place that someone decided to place a large blank canvas behind the exhaust of a jet and hurl buckets of paint into the exhaust stream while an engine was throttled up. This was also sold as art for a short time.

Hendrix did have talent -- raw undeveloped talent. Had he lived, in time it is possible that talent might have been developed, and he might have accomplished something great as a guitarist. Probably not, but you never know. If that had happened, the only notice Rolling Stone would give him today would be to ask, "what went wrong?"

But none of that did happen.

And what is being said here is that the Hendrix inspired "jazz" of Miles Davis et al did not represent any sort of post-post-bop evolutionary advance in the art.

Quite the opposite.

[Flyin' Brian]

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Do you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?

Oh my goodness. Diverting warp power to shields. Mr. Spock engage the ignore button!!

[Al_F]

Jimi is still fun to listen too & much of it sounds fresh since its basically blues which has a half-life of a 1000 years I bet.

Listening to his tunes (Machine Gun comes to mind), in the context of what was happening at the time - Vietnam War, American students bombing Americans, social upheaval - he nailed it much like Swing in the 30's , bop after WWII. The sheer sonic-ness of his playing, just out-standing.

I think this is why Miles tuned in, in the context of what was happening in society, he was expressing it musically.

[Buster Loaf]

Whenever I read posts from Jazzpunk, I can't help but think of this guy

[Jazzpunk]

Oh my goodness. Diverting warp power to shields. Mr. Spock engage the ignore button!!

Whoa, time to take your meds Brian. Looks like grampa's having another 'episode' lol.

[WhoisLevang]

Went back and tried to get through the whole thread from the beginning...
didn't make it. Got to page three.
Whatever the poll, Les Paul, Johnny Smith, Hank Garland and others, too many to mention (I haven't seen the list, but is Lonnie Mack or Mundell Lowe on it?) Hell, Roy Clark should be on it! Most influential? How about John Lee Hooker! Every blues and rock player on the planet owes him a tip of the hat.
Here's one from Eric worthy of a listen-

edit- Les Paul and John Lee Hooker are on the list. Les is no. 18.

[cosmic gumbo]

Mrs. Miles Davis (Betty Mabry Davis) knew about the primal power of jellyroll, and convinced Miles to see black music her way if he wanted to continue to eat dessert. It must have tasted damn good, because Miles changed his wardrobe and started playing electric black music. SHE changed jazz forever...

[pingu]

There's no greatest of course but jimi did change everything
I really like the Curtis Mayfield style chord-melody stuff
like Castles made of sand etc
he could play clean beautifully

Jimi loved Kenny Burrell apparently too

[Dark Star]

Jimi Hendrix played guitars?
I thought he just humped them

[mattymel]

Hendrix did have a huge effect on the jazz scene.

But it is not what you think it was.

In a nutshell, Hendrix (among others) caused some jazz musicians to decide to dumb down the music and begin exploiting the cult of personality for commercial purposes.

The dumbed down music made some money -- which...hey, everybody has to eat. But that brings up questions as to where aesthetics and the ethics of art intersect with a pure profit motive.

It wasn't long after this took place that someone decided to place a large blank canvas behind the exhaust of a jet and hurl buckets of paint into the exhaust stream while an engine was throttled up. This was also sold as art for a short time.

Hendrix did have talent -- raw undeveloped talent. Had he lived, in time it is possible that talent might have been developed, and he might have accomplished something great as a guitarist. Probably not, but you never know. If that had happened, the only notice Rolling Stone would give him today would be to ask, "what went wrong?"

But none of that did happen.

And what is being said here is that the Hendrix inspired "jazz" of Miles Davis et al did not represent any sort of post-post-bop evolutionary advance in the art.

Quite the opposite.

haha. okay. i'll play. yah! "raw, undeveloped" songs like: little wing, castles made of sand, angel, bold as love, machine gun, dolly dagger, drifting, etc...on and on. sure, okay, there are some dominant #9 chords...but no b9 chords???!!! and evidently he doesn't even know a ii V lick!

i would venture there are still some guitarist out there whose knowledge of hendrix pretty much starts and stops with 3 songs...the exact same 3 songs a typical rolling stone subscriber thinks about when they think " jimi hendrix...yeah, isn't that the guy with the afro that did voodoo on stage that one time after he played with his teeth and then burned his guitar cuz he was on so much acid...yeah, he's alright"

HA! i don't think miles had to exploit any personality other than his own. seemed to work pretty well for him musically, financially, and all before hendrix was even around. historically i'd say he is still doing pretty good too.

what could be another small revelation for some...Miles (and MANY other jazz masters) made their name playing "raw and undeveloped" music that CHANGED JAZZ on more than one occasion. its called "pure improvisation", a concept that is talked about by a lot on computer world wide web forums, but evidently performed by only a handful of money grubbing sellouts.

perhaps miles really should have "stayed the course" and recorded/released: "sort of red", followed by "a little orange", "more khaki"...
and what surely would have been his greatest moment, "is this black? or old navy blue?"

further more...using a similar attempt at logic, could it be theorized that coltrane felt it more financially responsible to "dumb down" his music after "giant steps"? after all, he went from playing songs that changed keys every 2 beats at 250 bpm to playing one chord for 40 minutes straight. i guess he got lazy? or maybe he figured the paying public wasn't ready for changing keys EVERY beat at 300 bpm? transcript from rare swedish interview..."when i was playing with miles, he taught me that it breaks down to roughly 5 dollars more a gig for every chord i DON'T play, divided by however guys I've got in the band. but my favorite innovation was when i realized i don't have to pay mccoy or jimmy when they lay out."

its interesting to me when someone that insinuates everything a magazine like rolling stone says MUST obviously be crap (because it represents the everyday music amateur non musician listener, right?) yet immediately adopts the exact same bourgeois mentality talking about how jazz that isnt bebop or hard bop or soft bop isn't good, or maybe isn't even jazz, even when its played by one of the same guys that created the whole thing.

EVERY...SINGLE...JAZZ MASTER/INNOVATOR AT THE TIME stopped playing bebop and started trying something NEW...maybe they felt they were on to something. maybe they needed to do it so that they could go back to playing rhythm changes better.

even more hilarious that someone can call an entire period of jazz "dumbed down" because they don't like it. or maybe because a new idea (like what the h chick corea, or mclaughlin, or liebman was playing with Miles, or after as a result of those experiences) was too advanced for amateur listeners to hear its value after one listen. historically, innovations haven't been treated well in music until they are considered the norm. for amateur jazzers that sometimes means they can't appreciate it unless they have a wacky lead sheet (they got from a reputable music magazine) that tells him what it is and how to play it.

personally, knowing that Hendrix had a huge impact on jazz makes me love him that much more. and glad to be in what is evidently the vast majority of music listeners for a RARE change.

luckily ALL ART IS in the eye of the beholder, whether that is someone in the parking lot of a sammy hagar concert staring at their new pee painting, or miles davis b@tch slapping a hater that tells him he sold out when he started wearing flowing wigs and parachute pants. personally i dig it all. if you don't like it, there's always the tipper gore fan club or the rest of the beret goatee jazzy wine and cheese crowd. personally I'm gonna go drop some acid and watch Miles open for Neil Young...the 2nd best guitarist of all time (in Falling Balls). at the very least, people will probably laugh more at this post than at yours...so thats a good thing.

[cjm]

haha. okay. i'll play. yah! "raw, undeveloped" songs like: little wing, castles made of sand, angel, bold as love, machine gun, dolly dagger, drifting, etc...on and on. sure, okay, there are some dominant #9 chords...but no b9 chords???!!! and evidently he doesn't even know a ii V lick!

i would venture there are still some guitarist out there whose knowledge of hendrix pretty much starts and stops with 3 songs...the exact same 3 songs a typical rolling stone subscriber thinks about when they think " jimi hendrix...yeah, isn't that the guy with the afro that did voodoo on stage that one time after he played with his teeth and then burned his guitar cuz he was on so much acid...yeah, he's alright"

HA! i don't think miles had to exploit any personality other than his own. seemed to work pretty well for him musically, financially, and all before hendrix was even around. historically i'd say he is still doing pretty good too.

what could be another small revelation for some...Miles (and MANY other jazz masters) made their name playing "raw and undeveloped" music that CHANGED JAZZ on more than one occasion. its called "pure improvisation", a concept that is talked about by a lot on computer world wide web forums, but evidently performed by only a handful of money grubbing sellouts.

perhaps miles really should have "stayed the course" and recorded/released: "sort of red", followed by "a little orange", "more khaki"...
and what surely would have been his greatest moment, "is this black? or old navy blue?"

further more...using a similar attempt at logic, could it be theorized that coltrane felt it more financially responsible to "dumb down" his music after "giant steps"? after all, he went from playing songs that changed keys every 2 beats at 250 bpm to playing one chord for 40 minutes straight. i guess he got lazy? or maybe he figured the paying public wasn't ready for changing keys EVERY beat at 300 bpm? transcript from rare swedish interview..."when i was playing with miles, he taught me that it breaks down to roughly 5 dollars more a gig for every chord i DON'T play, divided by however guys I've got in the band. but my favorite innovation was when i realized i don't have to pay mccoy or jimmy when they lay out."

its interesting to me when someone that insinuates everything a magazine like rolling stone says MUST obviously be crap (because it represents the everyday music amateur non musician listener, right?) yet immediately adopts the exact same bourgeois mentality talking about how jazz that isnt bebop or hard bop or soft bop isn't good, or maybe isn't even jazz, even when its played by one of the same guys that created the whole thing.

EVERY...SINGLE...JAZZ MASTER/INNOVATOR AT THE TIME stopped playing bebop and started trying something NEW...maybe they felt they were on to something. maybe they needed to do it so that they could go back to playing rhythm changes better.

even more hilarious that someone can call an entire period of jazz "dumbed down" because they don't like it. or maybe because a new idea (like what the h chick corea, or mclaughlin, or liebman was playing with Miles, or after as a result of those experiences) was too advanced for amateur listeners to hear its value after one listen. historically, innovations haven't been treated well in music until they are considered the norm. for amateur jazzers that sometimes means they can't appreciate it unless they have a wacky lead sheet (they got from a reputable music magazine) that tells him what it is and how to play it.

personally, knowing that Hendrix had a huge impact on jazz makes me love him that much more. and glad to be in what is evidently the vast majority of music listeners for a RARE change.

luckily ALL ART IS in the eye of the beholder, whether that is someone in the parking lot of a sammy hagar concert staring at their new pee painting, or miles davis b@tch slapping a hater that tells him he sold out when he started wearing flowing wigs and parachute pants. personally i dig it all. if you don't like it, there's always the tipper gore fan club or the rest of the beret goatee jazzy wine and cheese crowd. personally I'm gonna go drop some acid and watch Miles open for Neil Young...the 2nd best guitarist of all time (in Falling Balls). at the very least, people will probably laugh more at this post than at yours...so thats a good thing.

So you're saying Hendrix is the greatest guitarist of all time?

You don't seem to have a grasp of where, when, and how modern jazz came to be, or even who the masters/innovators were.

Which is okay. Hell, half of what I know is wrong too.

And it really doesn't give me any heartburn if somebody likes Hendrix. Or Miles Davis after he abandoned jazz for rock. Or whoever.

It's really about an evolutionary model.

Jazz can and does evolve. But not every "mutation" leads to positive results. There are evolutionary dead ends.

Look, I already raised three kids. I know how this works. My comments are not intended to "win an argument" with you today -- even assuming that I am at least partially correct and that my viewpoint has any real validity.

My intent is simply to plant a seed of something that will not fundamentally change your thinking or your tastes...but that will eventually, perhaps when you are middle aged, be incorporated into your way of assessing things: to become somewhat discriminating in your tastes.

To be discriminating is not to be closed minded. It is to think about and analyze for yourself, with grounding and guidance from the past, and to not merely accept what is spoon fed to you every day. It is really a matter of discarding the superficial.

Enjoy what you enjoy, but think it about some too.

Oh, and Jimi Hendrix, along with his peers, sucked as guitarists.

[AmundLauritzen]

So you're saying Hendrix is the greatest guitarist of all time?

You don't seem to have a grasp of where, when, and how modern jazz came to be, or even who the masters/innovators were.

Which is okay. Hell, half of what I know is wrong too.

And it really doesn't give me any heartburn if somebody likes Hendrix. Or Miles Davis after he abandoned jazz for rock. Or whoever.

It's really about an evolutionary model.

Jazz can and does evolve. But not every "mutation" leads to positive results. There are evolutionary dead ends.

Look, I already raised three kids. I know how this works. My comments are not intended to "win an argument" with you today -- even assuming that I am at least partially correct and that my viewpoint has any real validity.

My intent is simply to plant a seed of something that will not fundamentally change your thinking or your tastes...but that will eventually, perhaps when you are middle aged, be incorporated into your way of assessing things: to become somewhat discriminating in your tastes.

To be discriminating is not to be closed minded. It is to think about and analyze for yourself, with grounding and guidance from the past, and to not merely accept what is spoon fed to you every day. It is really a matter of discarding the superficial.

Enjoy what you enjoy, but think it about some too.

Oh, and Jimi Hendrix, along with his peers, sucked as guitarists.

Your last sentence was a bit too obvious. You did fine until then. Nice trolling attempt, but put some more effort into it and you'll be great!

[cjm]

Your last sentence was a bit too obvious. You did fine until then. Nice trolling attempt, but put some more effort into it and you'll be great!

See, the point is, I had a radio back when Hendrix was on the scene.

Had a phonograph too, but he wasn't on it.

[Sphere]

Hendrix did have a huge effect on the jazz scene.

But it is not what you think it was.

In a nutshell, Hendrix (among others) caused some jazz musicians to decide to dumb down the music and begin exploiting the cult of personality for commercial purposes.

Nonsense. Hendrix created a new esthetic, and that was his biggest contribution. He was also possibly the only guitarist capable of creating energy levels comparable to what Trane did later in his career.
He was a brilliant artist who created brilliant art. People such as Davis, McLaughlin, Fripp, Eno and many others had no problem acknowledging this, and I don't believe their motives were 'to dumb down the music and begin exploiting the cult of personality for commercial purposes'.
A desire to somehow empirically measure art by terms of commercial success, technical fluency or harmonic vocabulary is understandable, but it's also completely missing the point.

[mattymel]

for anybody else thats interested, I responded to this last CJM post using "**ANSWER**:" lines within the "quotes" as i couldnt figure out how to splice it up better. sorry.

So you're saying Hendrix is the greatest guitarist of all time?

**ANSWER**: No, i never said anyone was "the best" because philosophically there is no such thing when discussing "individual perspective" AKA "taste". "the best" for me or anyone else is nothing more than as a passing mood by one consciousness that is often mistakenly referred to as "fact" by the single individual. i think we may be in agreement there. however, collectively speaking, it seems hendrix is UNDENIABLY WIDELY ACCEPTED as an innovator of the sounds on the electric guitar that influenced all the guitarists (besides a few fuddy duddies) and musicians (jazz included) of his generation within a 3 year career AND continues to do so to this day. he was also the first rock guitar virtuoso. if you deny that what he played is challenging to execute, then thats obviously because you havent tried to play it because you never liked it. if you try and analyze, or muchless play it using jazz or classical techniques, it isnt possible because thats not what it is. its hendrix. i can emulate the way he plays note for note because i have spent many hours/years learning his style, but it doesnt mean i have mastered it as i still dont SOUND like Hendrix anymore than a trumpet student sounds like Miles or a dedicated sax player sounds like Bird. this is what makes a "genius" IMO.

You don't seem to have a grasp of where, when, and how modern jazz came to be, or even who the masters/innovators were.

**ANSWER**: Actually I have studied jazz history in an academic setting, from Congo Square to Jelly Roll, Louis, Bix, to Lester and Coleman, Fletcher/Duke/Basie and the other big bands, to Bird and Diz, Monk, Powell, to Sonny, Mingus, Miles and Trane, to Wayne, Herbie, Ornette to late Miles, Weather Report, Mahavishnu, Lifetime, (somewhat telling SIDE NOTE: during the late 60s-mid70s Jim Hall and many other masters were playing as pit musicians on TV shows) Kenny Wheeler, Metheny, Steve Coleman, Rosenwinkel, Mehldau, etc...i know i skipped a bunch, but my favorite jazz group of all time is still the Jimmy Giuffre trio and i practice/transcribe bebop/hardbop more than anything else.
QUITE possibly, i have an edge on you historically speaking because i also listen to baroque and classical, 20th century and modern composers, glenn gould, as well as robert johnson, hank williams, mississippi john hurt, the beatles, dylan, the band, velvet underground, bowie, neil young, cat stevens, stevie wonder, capt. beefheart, zep, bowie, a tribe called quest, outkast, radiohead, elliot smith, joanna newsom, and a few other "youngsters" i doubt you have heard etc...which actually gives me more of a true perspective as to the context of where jazz and music in general currently is and has been. though i definitely would not say i enjoy listening to ALL of it by ANY MEANS, i have learned to play songs by EVERY person i listed.

Which is okay. Hell, half of what I know is wrong too.

**ANSWER**: id say closer to 80%, but 50% at least.

And it really doesn't give me any heartburn if somebody likes Hendrix. Or Miles Davis after he abandoned jazz for rock. Or whoever.

It's really about an evolutionary model.

Jazz can and does evolve. But not every "mutation" leads to positive results. There are evolutionary dead ends.

**ANSWER**: Actually you are dead wrong. in music as in nature, the ONLY "dead end mutation" is NO EVOLUTION. which is why ANY experimentation in music is a GOOD thing regardless of how it is perceived by you, me or any one other than the musician playing it. for heartburn, maybe try not hatin' when "the times they are a changin"...

Look, I already raised three kids. I know how this works. My comments are not intended to "win an argument" with you today -- even assuming that I am at least partially correct and that my viewpoint has any real validity.

My intent is simply to plant a seed of something that will not fundamentally change your thinking or your tastes...but that will eventually, perhaps when you are middle aged, be incorporated into your way of assessing things: to become somewhat discriminating in your tastes.

To be discriminating is not to be closed minded. It is to think about and analyze for yourself, with grounding and guidance from the past, and to not merely accept what is spoon fed to you every day. It is really a matter of discarding the superficial.

**ANSWER**: this sounds kind of like a conservative jazz politician...no thanks. they already got one at the lincoln center. i still subscribe to the Miles' quote: "there are only two types of music: good and bad"...

Enjoy what you enjoy, but think it about some too.

Oh, and Jimi Hendrix, along with his peers, sucked as guitarists.

**Final Answer**: speaking strictly as a guitar teacher, good luck trying to get your 3 kids or anybody else's to like music by playing them your old jazz guitar records. im sorry, it sounds kind of like you missed the 60s along with the whole point of what Hendrix was trying to communicate. no offense, but i think you could use a little LESS history and a little more open frame of mind. for AN INNOVATOR history is only there to build upon. hendrix had a foundation of blues, soul, R&B, and turned it into his own thing. i can name only a handful of musicians that sound only like themselves while YOU AND ME are only arguing about THEM. hendrix never claimed to be a jazz player or studied that discipline, yet evidently from first hand accounts, he "could hang". if only he wasnt so tragically self destructive...a career of 3 years...and 40 years later we still have to argue about it. just one guitar fan guy's "perspective"...

[mattymel]

this song is sadly still as poignant and important today as it was in 1970. solo from 3:56 to 7:30 says it better than i could ever hope to communicate it.

RIP JIMI

[cjm]

and 40 years later we still have to argue about it.

We don't have to argue about it. All you need to do is admit that Jimi Hendrix was not the greatest guitar player of all time.

[mattymel]

in case anyone hasn't noticed, we ARE arguing about how he was ONE of the greatest EVER. the only difference is that i am stating facts and making valid points while you seem intent on proving your opinion is FACT with nothing to back it up.

why don't you respond to any of the points i made?

[Jazzpunk]

in case anyone hasn't noticed, we ARE arguing about how he was ONE of the greatest EVER. the only difference is that i am stating facts and making valid points while you seem intent on proving your opinion is FACT with nothing to back it up.

Once most people reach a certain age, subjective opinion and fact become one and the same.