I have a long term substituting gig with some 11^th graders and today they were bashing Hendrix as over-rated when compared to Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai. I tried to explain his importance as an innovator and incredibly soulful guitarist but these uh, scholars wouldn’t hear of it. “But Mr. H, those guys shred.” Rather than telling them to sit down and shut up and loading them up with meaningless homework I thought I’d turn to Vault people to answer Cookie’s question “what’s the big deal about Hendrix?” And Josh’s “what’s so great about Purple Haze?”

 

All responses that come in before Feb 7^th will be presented to the class and will only be edited for language that could get me fired.

 

(In interest of full disclosure I’m the guy who started the ever popular Led Zepplin bashing thread. But let’s just keep that stuff over in the LZ zone, please. ) 

 

Thanks

Mr. H

Malmsteen and Vai wouldn't exist had Jimi not broken downs the walls that allowed 'shredding' to be created. Personally, I think that Yngwie and Steve's music is completely lame and forgettable. Hendrix died over 35 years ago and people are still digging his records. When these 'shredders' pass away, their music will be forgotten. The guitar playing of shredders is stale, plastic, and emotionless. They play dozens of notes per second, throwing them away like they mean nothing. Hendrix understood the importance and power of every note, and played with maximum emotion and feeling. Witness the first note of the Machine Gun solo. His guitar channeled sounds and feelings that seemed to come from outer space or a different universe. All shredders sound the same, but when you put on a Hendrix record, you know after hearing a couple of notes that it's Jimi. He successfully created and inimitable style and sound. And not only was he a master guitar player, he was an amazing songwriter too. Tell 'Josh' that Purple Haze isn't even close to being Hendrix's best song. To answer their question of why Jimi is so great, bring a stereo to class, put on Machine Gun, tell them to listen up, then press play and crank the volume. Or let them hear the playing on Little Wing.

The fact is that most high school kids have shitty taste and think that speed equals good guitar playing. Eventually they'll mature and realise that guys like Hendrix, Albert King, Clapton, etc. are really where it's at.

p.s. for a lot of help answering this question go to harmony-central.com, then go into the forums, register, and post this question in the 'Guitar Jam' forum. Within a couple hours of posting I can almost guarantee that you'll have a page or two of good responses, more articulate and composed than mine.

I am impressed that anyone in 11th grade today actually know who Malmsteen and Vai are. But I digress...

 

 

OK, here it is in a nutshell. Recordings are just a snapshot in time. Hearing, seeing it live is what it is all about. Hendrix had so much energy live that it burned an imprint into my memory. That is where the bar was set and nobody has jumped over it yet. Jimi was a true artist. Right there, it sets him apart, period.

The gear that recorded Hendrix live shows and studio was prehistoric in comparison to what you could buy at a music store today, sit in your bedroom and create perfect little shredding recordings with Protools.

Jimi Live, is all you have to say. Who did Malmsteen, Vai and the next generations of guitar whackers listen to. Have these kids actually seen these guys live or are they basing their arguments on some "doctored/fixed up" hard drive studio recordings.

Only time will tell if the music is relevant. Four hundred years after Bach, it's still getting listened to. Thirty years after I completely burned out on Beatles, Stones, Etc. in heavy rotation on Top 40 radio, people still listen to, buy recordings and concert tickets. Let's see what these kids are listening to in thirty years.

Jimi didn't melt the frets off the guitar because he wanted to impress people, he did it because he could, because he had to. He was an archetype. Look that word up in the dictionary.

A more imortant discussion or lesson might be: How can you rate music or musicians? Is it a race or a competition? This a pointless endevor. Music and art, ain't a stick and ball game.

I can think of a pile of (I hate to use the word "Jazz", a geniric term that doesn't mean much) guitar players that were/are techinically better instumentalists, better musicians than Yngwie and Vai and Hendrix combined.

This whole topic is soo Jr. High School. Listen to the archetypical Louie Armstrong. Listen to some Coltrane from the Impulse years, any Charlie Parker, Miles Davis. Those were the guys that stretched the publics ears in a way that Hendrix never did.

In the end, it is going to be a tough sell to get kids to understand what was going on in the world at that time. Our society was so straight and conservitave. Jimi was outrageous in a world with out MTV, a corporate music machine or instant world wide media coverage.

Everybody today is trying to be outragoeus with their, tatoos, piercings, clothes and dress. It's all too common now and has no real impact. Jimi simply WAS outrageous.

Get the kids to search for interviews and see what the Beatles, Stones, Jimi Page, Pete Townsend, and Clapton said when they saw Hendrix live in a little club for the first time.

In the end... there are only twelve different notes. Bach invented the system, wrote the rules and broke them in his lifetime. ALL WESTERN MUSIC IS DERIVITAVE. Everybody including Jim, copied his stuff from somebody, somehow.

Good luck Mr. H

Pete Townsend was once asked if he was jealous or angry that bands "stole" from The Who, especially when punk became popular, because The Who's stage show was punk before anyone else was.  He answer?  It's fine.  The Who "borrowed" or "stole" from those who were before them and he expects bands to take his matierial.  He says it's part of the game, but he expects the next ones to do it better or different.

 

The best guitar players of today are truly great also.  I like to hear Vai, Van Halen, Satriani, and Eric Johnson because I like the instrument and I like it played fast and powerfully.  But, you just cannot forget that people like Jimi Hendrix, Alvin Lee (Ten Years After), and Johnny Winter, and especially Buddy Guy did it before they did.  They just did it a bit sloppier and less exact at times.  It's like dunking a basketball -- the early spectacular dunkers blew me away when I was young, but I admit that today's players can dunk even more spectacularly.  It doesn't necessarily mean they are better.  It's all about context. 

I was lucky enough to be born in 1951 and to grow up in the SF Bay Area and to see Hendrix live twice at the Winterland Ballroom.  You had to be there to believe what it was like.  He was unlike any performer before him. The clothes, the guitar playing, the wall of amplifiers, and even what he said made him more cool, more hip, more psychedelic than anything anyone had seen or heard up to that time and by far -- and that's why Hendrix is a big deal.

My recommendation for seeing him perform is "Jimi Plays Monterey" filmed in June 1967 and also "Jimi Plays Berkeley" filmed a bit later.  Both give you a good idea of what he was about.  He was so dang casual about the way he pulled it off too.  Thank you for listening and having an open mind.

Actually, after Clapton first saw Hendrix he was a little shaken, but his girlfriend at the time has said that others at the club were unimpressed by his sloppy playing and show-off moves. And in '68 Clapton stated, about Hendrix, "I don't think he's a great guitar player". Make of it what you will; I'm just saying that not all of his contemporaries were in awe.

Yes, his playing was a bit sloppy as I noted above, but ahhh... what playing it was! It's my understanding that the first guitar player to use feedback in his leads was Jeff Beck, but Hendrix was close on his heels and he took it 5 leaps beyond Beck. I suspect that if Jimi lived, he would have cleaned up his style a bit, and would not be as dependent on high volume and feedback. He was a genius and would have evolved. Show off? Of course he was! He played behind his head, with his teeth, and used obviously sexual poses and moves. But, he borrowed this from guys before him like Chuck Berry and Buddy Guy. But, then he dropped a bit of acid and Voila! You have the first and best psychedelic/blues/power trio of all time. I don't know if any performer in history looked so different from the previous performers in rock and roll. Maybe Devo? Some early punk? The look was part of the uniqueness and today's rock and rollers should understand. It's the context, baby.

Actually, the first trio (and the best imo) in rock history was the Cream, formed in 66. Jimi was a big fan and seemed to have formed the Experience trying to go for a Cream sound. Unfortunately Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding were practically amateurs compared to Ginger Baker and Jack Bruce, and they couldn't keep up with Jimi a lot of the time (whereas Jack and Ginger would push Clapton to keep up with them). The Experience had amazing records, but some of their live shows are unlistenable.

And I think Hendrix did clean up his sound in 69/70, when he expressed frustration with people expecting to see guitar-humping and burning guitars at every show, and wanting to hear Purple Haze over and over again. Also, getting Billy Cox on bass seemed to tighten up his live performances. I think Hendrix's good shows are so mind-bending that they more than make up for his sloppy concerts. He really took guitar playing to levels that nobody else has been able to touch.

Weird: You are absolutely correct about Cream's status as the first power trio. And you are also accurate about the virtuosity of Bruce and Baker. Noel Redding in particular was not in any of these musician's class, but I have to say, since I saw Hendrix twice, that Mitch Mitchell was outstanding. He was not in the same class as Baker or Moon, but in the next tier, like along with Ansley Dunbar. Subject for another forum thread: is Clapton overrated? I say yes.

If you really want to do these kids a favor you'll introduce them to Frank Zappa. IMO his guitar playing kicked everyone's a%s.

Peter H:

I have a long term substituting gig with some 11^th
graders and today they were bashing Hendrix as over-rated when compared to
Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai. I tried to explain his importance as an
innovator and incredibly soulful guitarist but these uh, scholars wouldn’t hear
of it. “But Mr. H, those guys shred.” Rather than telling them to sit down and shut up
and loading them up with meaningless homework I thought I’d turn to Vault
people to answer Cookie’s question “what’s the big deal about Hendrix?” And
Josh’s “what’s so great about Purple Haze?”

 

All responses that come in before Feb 7^th will be
presented to the class and will only be edited for language that could get me
fired.

 

(In interest of full disclosure I’m the guy who started the
ever popular Led Zepplin bashing thread. But let’s just keep that stuff over in
the LZ zone, please. ) 

 

Thanks

Mr. H

Phooey on the overrated psuedo-intellectual Zappa. His guitar playing was ok, but he had nothing on the legends like Jimi, Beck, Clapton, Buchanan, etc.

Just because you were too unfortunate to get it, doesn't mean he was a "psuedo-intellectual." It can take years to get the essence of what Zappa was doing. His brilliance must be sought, it isn't just handed to you like so many Jimi Page solos. So get over youself and get back and study! The benefits you will reep will be enourmous, just like Charlie's mouth? (wink). Zappa was the genious of our time. Knerps for moisture.

Saw Hendrix (2 times in 68); saw Zappa (once in 1977).  Hendrix was much more of an innovator than Zappa.  Zappa could play alright, but his style is kind of a poor man's John McLaughlin or something.  He stood out because you expected a shredder rock and roller and you get this charming jazz/rock thing.  Zappa was clever, but a genius?  Did you ever see him interviewed?  Geniuses usually have a lot more to say and are more articulate.  But, he made his point with the Mothers of Invention and he staked out an important piece of rock history.

I saw Hendrix and I saw the Mothers. Did you?

Zappa was an inovative composer and studio arranger. I got Zappa. He was a hundred times the musician Jimi was in my book. Just look at his scores. I don't think Jimi could even read music. Zappa was no Gil Evans, George Russell or Duke Ellington, however.

The thing for me is that he didn't write music that I found beautiful. I find beauty in some of Hendrix work. If I was banished to a desert island and could take ten artists recordings, Zappa wouldn't be one of them. I'd consider Axis Bold as Love, but it might not make it either.

It's all apples and oranges. This is a pretty pointless argument. Are we still in Jr. High School here? I bet I could beat you up and my big brother could beat your big brother!

Billiam:

Saw Hendrix (2 times in 68); saw Zappa (once in 1977).  Hendrix was much more of an innovator than Zappa.  Zappa could play alright, but his style is kind of a poor man's John McLaughlin or something.  He stood out because you expected a shredder rock and roller and you get this charming jazz/rock thing.  Zappa was clever, but a genius?  Did you ever see him interviewed?  Geniuses usually have a lot more to say and are more articulate.  But, he made his point with the Mothers of Invention and he staked out an important piece of rock history.

Have I ever heard Zappa interviewed? Uh ... well yes, on numerous occasions, and he had more to say then just about any human being I have ever met. You are kidding ... right? Zappa NOT articulate? Some (most) people just don't get his music, and that's fine ... but to suggest that the man was not artculate and that he had little to say is right up there amongst the most idiotic things I have ever heard. You are misinformed. This world dearly misses Zappa's intellect even more than his music. He was contemplating a run for President when he fell ill. I'd say he had a few things to say.