The Steel Guitar Forum

It was my observation at the time, and I remain convinced that a large portion of the rock n' roll and even pop music of the day was a product of the California drug culture - druggies writing and performing music that only other druggies could understand.

Typical BS stereotyping.

Also nonsense.

My only point is to comment on the statement and its validity, not the writer, who claims to have ben around yet was obviously so far distanced from the *music* he neglected to see the forest for the trees.

Yes, there was an open drug culture. It made its way into country music as well, from alcohol to heroin. "Artists" of any type seem to, according to psychological studies, be prone to certain electrochemical reactions, imbalances, mood swings, etc. The whole drug-culture thing is irrelevant except for its unfortunate toll on human life. Drugs made no better or worse music by themseves; some terrible music was made as a result of chemicals (think Syd Barrett's flameout with Pink Floyd) and some incredible pieces weredone as well (Santana's blistering set at Woodstock, in the midst of a paranoid mood fueled by acid).

If you know anything at all about Hendrix, you would know he was a "showman" - from the earliest days he did the behind-the-head playing in otherwise very straight bands - something inspired by bluesman T-Bone Walker. Kevin Hatton nailed Hendrix as far as music - he truly was an innovator, not an imitator. And the "flaming Strat" was showmanship, pure and simple.

My good friend Bobbe and I don't agree about Hendrix at Woodstock (and he may have only seen the original movie cuts, not the entire set - the producers used only the most electrifying...and polarizing...parts) but I don't think the
2 Marshall stacks" line was necessary, is it took the statement out of the realm of personal opinion to exaggerated "fact". If you don't like something, say what it is...not present an overblown picture of something that didn't exist.

Hendrix took blues-based rock (as opposed to country-based rock; Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc) and turned it on its head. Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page and Jeff Beck were also doing incredibly influential and creative things, but none with the flair of Hendrix.

One may not care for the music he did, but his influence on the direction of popular music cannot be denied.

...[snip]...
One may not care for the music he did, but his influence on the direction of popular music cannot be denied.

...Even with respect to many of the heros of some folks that don't like Hendrix...

As usual, both Daves have said most of what I would wish to say.As for my first guitar hero, Wes, well, when he hit the scene he was anything but conventional! He only sounds conventional nearly a half century later because he so strongly influenced every other jazz guitarist (and not a few rockers) to come along since.
No one has yet mentioned what to me is the outstanding trait shared by Jimi and Wes; an uncanny rhythmic sense.Both men could take a simple idea of a few notes and spin out a fascinating improvisation that's still fresh sounding, at least to me, after all these years.
The Woodstock SSB ? It's both art and a political statement.In the USSR Jimi would have wound up in the Gulag, but fortunately he did it in the USA, so we can still hear it and express our opinions.
Happy holidays, all!
CR.

The song lyrics refer to "the land of the free". To my way of thinking, freedom includes the freedom to interpret the song in whatever style suits you. When I hear a new arrangement, good or bad, I still salute it.

We honor freedom in this country. Every arrangement of the anthem is a celebration of freedom. Let's not forget that. Jimi's expression of freedom may not have been what many people wanted to hear, but it certainly drove home the point.

It's not always just about the music. There are other important things in this world.

Bee Zero Bee...I salute you!

The whole SSB thing became famous through the movie.
Jimi appeared after Sha Na Na on the Monday morning when most folks had gone home. Like some kind of lucky religion being in the right place at the right time, it has become legend. I'm still a big fan, though.

Arch.

Sha Na Na were good too.

Oh I see now, Jimi was the one who influenced country music to be what it is today? I can believe this! Yep, inovative alright. He was a lot beter in the beginning at the Jolly Roger club. I rank his show right up there with mud wresteling! Sorry Tor and all, I'm an American and have the happy right to disagree with you. And I do it good naturedly with love and respect for you all.

I put Jimi right there with many other famous players that are more show than go! Originalitry? So he owned a fuzz tone, big deal.

Seems as though some of you still confuse music with entertainment, Jimi was great at the latter, and yes, I set my steel on fire at a show in Dallas once in 1959, guess I was ahead of my time.

Now then, there was a guy named Jerry Garcia, naw, I'll save this one,

Ha!

Bobbe

"rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air" right on man on a electric guitar.

I did attend Woodstock, though unfortunately I left the night before Jimi’s performance.
BTW – Not that anyone needed them, but we actually had tickets to get in.

"they could do the same thing in a single half-hour lesson if they had the same equipment"

Tor, I agree that the above statement is very far out of context and simply not true, and here’s why.
By the time I got to Woodstock (pun intended, I couldn’t help it!) I had already been playing in busy and successful cover and original bands for about 4 years as a lead guitarist. We were already playing Purple Haze and Fire as part of our set a couple of years before Woodstock happened. I was pretty good at copying all of the psychodelic, pop, rock & mo-town songs of the times. I guarantee you I could not have expressed myself nearly as well and even if I had the same equipment and had practiced it for hours trying to copy Jimi’s version of the Star Spangled Banner, I would not have done a good job of capturing it. Yes, of course the melody to the song is rather simple, and many amateur musicians can learn to play it on a guitar or piano within a short period of time, but that’s NOT the point.
I believe Jimi’s mastery and command over the instrument was earned by hours and years of practice and dedication, in addition to his seemingly unearthly natural abilities. His attack, vibrato, sense of timing, ear, rhythmic sense, fluidity, command over the tremolo bar and the whole guitar in general was no less than phenomenal. To say an average player forty years ago with a half hour’s practice or lesson could have done justice to one of his performances, I say is the definition of impossible.
He was making his guitar sound as though bombs and sirens were going off.
I’d be willing to bet that there were very few if any guitar teachers at that time who were able and willing to teach that.

And to use the term “if they had the same equipment” doesn’t apply, because Jimi figured out what equipment to combine & use, and how to create and use effects that were new at the time.
Today, 40 years later, technology allows someone to go into a guitar store and buy equipment that may sound similar to what Jimi created back then, but that’s not at all the same as having the insight and ability to create it when there wasn’t a model to copy from.
It may be relatively easy now to look back and say he used X guitar and X amps and X effects and so on, but believe me, it wasn’t easy at all back then to recreate his sound, let alone his approach to expressing himself so creatively on the guitar.

I realize Jimi’s guitar playing is not everybody’s cup of tea, and it is not my intention to offend you or try to convince you otherwise.

Marc

You are confusing entertainment and music again, just like Tor.,

Bobbe

Actually, Jimi must be a lot better musician than Sagovia, Emmons, Atkins, Chalker, Desmond, Brubeck or Oscar Peterson. After all, these guys never set their instruments on fire, played that loud, or ran that fast around the stage, to say nothing of the money. Yep, that's what it takes to really be great!

BobbeSeymour wrote: Seems as though some of you still confuse music with entertainment,

Seems as though you confuse your personal taste with some sort of elevated knowledge of what is 'good' music......

"Stinkin' hippies need to learn to respect my authorita" ....Eric Cartman

Jimi...was different.Reading a Guitar Player interview on Ricky Skaggs a few years ago in which he had to learn "Purple Haze" in 30 days...all he had was an acoustic ...said his fingers were sore from learning that stuff ! Jimi had talent. I strongly disagree with Bobbe.

The whole argument reminds me of threads on the Forum, or elsewhere, about Bob Dylan's singing voice and how "bad" it is.

Good lord, my dad brought that one up in our house about 40 years ago!

Steinar, sure, I have personal taste, sorry my right to express it seems to offend you. You have just expressed yours, I don't agree with your opinion, but the difference between us is I respect your opinion. Wish you and Tor were nice enough to respect mine.
Why not just be nice and offer an opposing opinion?

Bobbe

Wish you and Tor were nice enough to respect mine.

Huh? Where have I said that I don't respect your opinion or tried stopping you from expressing it?

What I react to is your ridiculing of Hendrix and statements like the one I quoted in my previous post, where you seem to imply that you obviously know something the rest of us don't, since we're somewhat blinded by his showmanship and confuse it with talent and originality.

You really don't expect to get away without any reactions when you write stuff like:

I put Jimi right there with many other famous players that are more show than go! Originalitry? So he owned a fuzz tone, big deal.

Don't like his music? Fine, no problem with me, it's the ridiculing that rubs me the wrong way. I thought a musician of your caliber would at least be able to recognize the talent, even if you don't like the music.

It's been 40 years now, and his music is still an inspiration for new generations.
As the great jazz arranger Gil Evans once said - "Every time I return to Jimi's music I find something new, I never get tired of it".

Sorry Steinar, I deeply respect your great writing and debating skills, but I have to stand by my convictions of what I like and don't like. I'm sure if you knew me better, you could find I have some other opionions of my own you won't like, but then, everyone will have some kind of opinion you won't like. This is just the way humanity works, better get used to it, it will make the going much easier!

I also appreciate your musical work and have been a fan of yours for years, like I am many players on this forum, for me, I love many styles of music and play many instruments, have recorded country, jazz, blues and yes, Rock. In my long career I have played many styles of music on several instruments. Some I'm sure you won't like, you opinions would be welcomed at any time, and I'll respect them with honor.

Jimi may not be a bad player, Tiny Tim may not have been a bad singer, Jack Benny may not have been a bad violinist,
but I don't have to like them. Ernest Tubb may have been a horrible singer, but I loved what he did, still do, but you don't have to.

Get what I'm trying to say here? And yes, I do understand your post, Sorry I ridiculed your hero, you can ridicule Ernest Tubb or Johnny Cash if you wish, I won't get mad!

Bobbe

This is "lutefisk" season over here, and I hate "lutefisk". I can't stand the sight, smell, or taste of it.
But I would never claim it's not food.

I thoroughly agree with Marc F. You have to take it in the context of it's time. It was bold. innovative, creative, and went against the grain. Extremely creative for it's time. Listen to Miles Davis in his time. Same thing. Hendrix was the Van Gogh of his time on guitar. I understand how people may not like it, but it was extremely creative and challenging to other electric rock guitarists. Soul to the bone.

Steinar,,Ha Ha!, This response is just another reason I appreciate you, This pretty well covers it all! (you slick debaiter you!)

Kevin, I'll be more than glad to take your word for what you said,

Bobbe

In my opinionated opinion, no one familiar with the totality of Jimi Hendrix's work would even bother to mention his performance of Star Spangled Banner in a discussion of his artistic merit. It's a mildly interesting stunt, a bauble of no consequence. Conclusions about political implications or judgments of patriotism are purely in the mind of the beholder--it's an instrumental performance!!!

Bobbe, of course you don't have to like Hendrix! But don't base it on SSB!

Thank you Brint, great post, and I feel you must be correct, Guess I'd better dig out my old 33/3rd albums and take another listen, wow 40 years? Was it that long ago?

Bobbe

What are you guys doing up this late??

BobbeSeymour wrote:
What are you guys doing up this late??

Late? What do you mean by 'late'? It's 9:30 in the morning here and I'm still winding down after a long gig last night... (I love the smell of a good argument in the morning)

As I said earlier, I hardly consider Jimi's SSB to be his musical high-water mark. But I stand by everything I said earlier - Jimi was hugely important to a lot of musicians and listeners, including me. I expect the verdict of history on this will stand for generations to come, and there's probably nothing that his detractors can do about it. Further, it doesn't bother me in the least that Bobbe or anybody else doesn't find Jimi interesting in the least.

I know plenty of people that just don't like Hendrix. In fact, they go much further - they really don't like what he stood for - or what they perceive he stood for. We all have a right to make these kinds of decisions. I think it's worth it to make the argument, but then accept that there must be some important premises we don't share and that's that. I do think it's worth it to try to explore the differences, but not get excited over it.

For example, there are musicians out there who are hugely important to other people that I simply don't get. I mean no insult, but I wouldn't walk one foot out of my way to even comment about them. Why incur the wrath of loyal thrall about someone that doesn't matter? In philosophical terms, I would say that either - #1) I simply can't grok the paradigm they're working out of, or #2) I think I do grok their paradigm but find it lacking. Strangely, sometimes I think it's #2, but then sometime later find it was #1. C'est la vie.

These conversations come up so often among musicians that it makes me wonder what the real cause is. I think there are deep-seated cultural, experiential, and sometimes generational differences at root. It's people like Dylan, Hendrix, JG, and RR that seem to generate the most ink here. Each of these people somehow shattered a previously existing set of rules about how popular music of a particular type, or on a particular instrument, should be played. This was the basic conclusion of my earlier post. But note - we shouldn't expect that to happen with impunity - these rules are often the subject of deep emotional conviction. Riots used to break out when European classical composers debuted controversial works. Art is supposed to stir emotions, and that doesn't just mean "Oh, man, I just love it."

Bobbe, I had to laugh when you argued that perhaps modern country was strongly influenced by Jimi. I don't really see that. Actually, I think it was more Skynyrd and the Eagles, who seem to me to be largely orthogonal to what Jimi was doing. Jimi truly came from a blues, soul, funk, and R&B thread - I think his melodic, harmonic, and especially rhythmic concepts were very different. Perhaps he did influence some of the showman - i.e., entertainment - stuff - Garth flying around on wires and so on. But musically, I don't see so much in common. Just my view of it.