Page 1 of 2
#1
well guys i wanna know what do you think of the way of play that jimi used, i mean maybe for the more ortodox people he may had a "dirty" hand like my teacher says but some others say that he made an innovation on the way of playing guitar so... it's up to you: his technique was an abomination or a alternative??

greetings from chili
#2
even if people say that Jimi Hendrix had bad technique, look at the great music he has created and inspired many people. Now think about that.
#3
Put his playing aside for a second, that man had a really awesome voice IMO.
Neverender:SSTB 4/19


Goddamn this cursed iron fist. When I lose control!


[quote="'[VictorinoX"]']You, sir, win epically.
#4
alternative. Jimi kicked ass. also, the guitarist from living colour has a sloppy technique, and he is fricken great at guitar. and they are both black. A coincidence? i think not
Epiphone G-400
Yamaha Pacifica (Mod on hold due to procrastination)
Rocktron Banshee
Marshall 10CD

Quote by geetarguy13

I've never smoked before but it looks like fun.
#5
i know that he was one of the greatest i admire him a lot and feel very influenced by him but i just wanted to discuss his tech with other people
#6
Even technique is dependent upon the player. People always debate proper techniques, such as economy picking, alternate picking, etc.... I think his technique was unorthodox, but it couldn't have been that bad for him to play to the ability that he could.
- 1997 PRS CE24 - Raspberry -
- Peavey 6505+ 1x12 Combo -
- Dunlop 535Q Wah Pedal -
- Digitech Digital Delay -
- Digitech Multi Chorus -
#7
I think his technique was unorthodox, but it couldn't have been that bad for him to play to the ability that he could.


i totally agree with you
#8
Quote by ColinMc
even if people say that Jimi Hendrix had bad technique, look at the great music he has created and inspired many people. Now think about that.


His name is Vernon Reid. He had places where his playing style could be described as sloppy. At the same time, in fact most of the time, his playing was quite precise.

I'd go so far as to say that Vernon Reid is the guitarist that Hendrix would have liked to have become had he lived.

Same crazy 'out there' approach, but Reid is far, far more precise and technical.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#10
I really like Vernon Reid's playing. I haven't heard a whole lot of it, but what I've heard is definitely very good stuff from a skilled guitarist. I especially like Cult of Personality, mostly because my Guitar Hero playing friends can't play it (I can't on my guitar, but that's negligible)
#11
Hendrix was from a time before players went to GIT. He learned from playing, and his playing was as good as it needed to be to express what he wanted to say. Arguing about his technique is besides the point; Hendrix, with all the flaws in his playing, said more in one bar of a solo than Malmsteen has in 30 years. The difference? For Hendrix, technique was a means to an end. For Malmsteen, technique is an end in and of itself (which is why he makes horrible, horrible music).
#12
^
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002

I don't know how many times I've explained the "song first, technique second" idea to my friends.
#13
Hendrix was totally an innovator, maybe his technique wasnt the best but hi still created a lot of things on the world of guitar and inspired generations of musicians
some people say that he was sloppy because they think only about the technique
Steve Vai said that you dont have to be a virtuoso to be a great guitarist because Kurt Cobain wasnt a virtuoso but he made great songs
Hola.
#14
Quote by luyano
Hendrix was totally an innovator, maybe his technique wasnt the best but hi still created a lot of things on the world of guitar and inspired generations of musicians
some people say that he was sloppy because they think only about the technique
Steve Vai said that you dont have to be a virtuoso to be a great songwriter because Kurt Cobain wasnt a virtuoso but he made great songs


Fixed. Perfect now.

The 'in his day' thing I have a hard time with. Page, Beck, and to go the other end, Segovia were all players from before I was born and were good in their day. They're still good (er... great) players. On a technical level, better than Hendrix.

Yes, Hendrix was hugely important as an innovator, but his *playing* is really overrated.

IMHO.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#15
Quote by luyano
Hendrix was totally an innovator, maybe his technique wasnt the best but hi still created a lot of things on the world of guitar and inspired generations of musicians
some people say that he was sloppy because they think only about the technique
Steve Vai said that you dont have to be a virtuoso to be a great guitarist because Kurt Cobain wasnt a virtuoso but he made great songs

making great songs makes you a great songwriter, not a great guitarist.

in terms of guitar playing, id say jimi was a decent guitarist. he was great at blues and rock but in terms of technical ability and musical knowledge he was pretty average. that being said he was an amazing musician. he was a great rhythm player, made good songs and knew how to convey his emotions through guitar well. he also helped change the way electric guitar was played. no one would be using whammy bar dives, feedback, and certain effects the way they do now if it werent for him. he knew how to use sound to make music.
#16
Quote by koslack
Hendrix was from a time before players went to GIT. He learned from playing, and his playing was as good as it needed to be to express what he wanted to say. Arguing about his technique is besides the point; Hendrix, with all the flaws in his playing, said more in one bar of a solo than Malmsteen has in 30 years. The difference? For Hendrix, technique was a means to an end. For Malmsteen, technique is an end in and of itself (which is why he makes horrible, horrible music).


Please, enough with the idiot fanboyism. Don't discuss the listener's subjective interpretation of a piece of music as if it were an objective property of the music itself. The statement "Hendrix says more in one bar than x guitarist does in x time" is completely baseless unless you define "says" is some way that is non-subjective and quantifiable. I personally find his music boring and cold.

no one would be using whammy bar dives, feedback, and certain effects the way they do now if it werent for him.


Of course they would. Guitar as an instrument has been steadily developing since its invention. The notion that only one person is capable of developing a technique is ridiculous; as if no one, anywhere, would think of depressing the whammy bar if Hendrix hadn't done it.

I'm reporting this thread, since the only purpose seems to be to talk about the TS' favorite guitarist is better than every other guitarist.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 29, 2009,
#17
Quote by Archeo Avis
Please, enough with the idiot fanboyism. Don't discuss the listener's subjective interpretation of a piece of music as if it were an objective property of the music itself. The statement "Hendrix says more in one bar than x guitarist does in x time" is completely baseless unless you define "says" is some way that is non-subjective and quantifiable. I personally find his music boring and cold.

He's discussing what an artist "says" through his art. It is quite obvious that he is discussing his own subjective point of view. Only a total dumb fuck would interpret any kind of objective claim in that context.

He doesn't have to define what 'says' in some non-subjective way. It's a case of - if you have to ask, you'll never know.

Once again you add nothing to the thread but a deconstructive critique of someone else's opinion/post.

I personally find your posts boring and cold.


Quote by Archeo Avis
I'm reporting this thread, since the only purpose seems to be to talk about the TS' favorite guitarist is better than every other guitarist.

It looks to me like he wants to discuss Jimi's technique. Possibly the wrong forum could one of the genre specific forums but we do discuss technique here don't we? So it could fit here too.
Si
#18
Quote by 20Tigers
He's discussing what an artist "says" through his art. It is quite obvious that he is discussing his own subjective point of view. Only a total dumb fuck would interpret any kind of objective claim in that context.

He doesn't have to define what 'says' in some non-subjective way. It's a case of - if you have to ask, you'll never know.


This sounds suspiciously non-subjective...

said more in one bar of a solo than Malmsteen has in 30 years. The difference? For Hendrix, technique was a means to an end. For Malmsteen, technique is an end in and of itself (which is why he makes horrible, horrible music).


He even assumes specific motivations on the part of the guitarists (this is a subjective point of view in the same sense that "Hendrix only played guitar so that drunken groupies would sleep with him" is a subjective point of view). Speculation about the motivating force behind an action is hardly a "subjective point of view"; it's a statement about reality.

Why is it that when I say I dislike Hendrix, I'm a pompous ass who just likes to attack other guitarists, but when someone claims that Hendrix makes objectively superior music to another guitarist (who makes horrible, horrible music), he's just "expressing his subjective opinion"?

You aren't concerned with civility or the quality of input, only people. You're similar to GuitarMunky in that you pick a side and defend it vehemently regardless of whether or not the ideas espoused by that side are consistent with sides you've previously taken. That's how you can frequently oppose people making irrelevant attacks on other musicians in one thread, but happily dismiss the criticism of Malmsteen as someone who makes "horrible, horrible music" as "subjective point of view" in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with one's like or dislike of Malmsteen.

It's also how you can respond to a completely civil post with "dumb ****" despite frequently whining about said poster being an ass. You only care about who makes the post, not what the post contains. Dumb ****.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 30, 2009,
#19
Quote by 20Tigers
He's discussing what an artist "says" through his art. It is quite obvious that he is discussing his own subjective point of view. Only a total dumb fuck would interpret any kind of objective claim in that context.

He doesn't have to define what 'says' in some non-subjective way. It's a case of - if you have to ask, you'll never know.

Once again you add nothing to the thread but a deconstructive critique of someone else's opinion/post.

I personally find your posts boring and cold.





I concur with this post.
There may be times when it is impossible to prevent injustice, but there should never be a time when we fail to protest it.


Take a trip down the Scenic River


Call me Charlie.
#20
Quote by whysky
well guys i wanna know what do you think of the way of play that jimi used, i mean maybe for the more ortodox people he may had a "dirty" hand like my teacher says but some others say that he made an innovation on the way of playing guitar so... it's up to you: his technique was an abomination or a alternative??

greetings from chili



abomination?


he was a very innovative, and creative guitarist/musician.

You're teacher say's he had a "dirty hand" ?? What does that mean?

Quote by axemanchris

I'd go so far as to say that Vernon Reid is the guitarist that Hendrix would have liked to have become had he lived.


CT


I think Hendrix was his own artist..... I'd guess that he had no interest in becoming someone else.

Personally I think Hendrix was far above Reid in terms or art and innovation, and as a player in general. I'd guess that Reid my have fantasized about being Hendrix at some point in his life. (though I do like some of his music with Living Colour).
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Jul 30, 2009,
#21
His stuff is pure soul. It doesn't matter if he was good technically or even if he was innovative. The man had music pumping through his veins.
"Good and evil lay side by side as electric love penetrates the sky"
#22
Quote by Archeo Avis
Please, enough with the idiot fanboyism. Don't discuss the listener's subjective interpretation of a piece of music as if it were an objective property of the music itself. The statement "Hendrix says more in one bar than x guitarist does in x time" is completely baseless unless you define "says" is some way that is non-subjective and quantifiable. I personally find his music boring and cold.


Other than the Hendrix's music being boring and cold, I agree with all of the above. Koslack, how can you say that "Hendrix says more in one bar than Malmsteen said in 30 years?" How do you know? What do you measure it by? I mean what do you base that claim on? Do Malmsteen's songs sound the same to you? Does he play too fast for you? Some people might like those sort of things. Because its their preference. And there are billions of preferences and opinions in this world in addition to yours, which is why they are a very poor basis to base a statement on.
#23
Quote by Archeo Avis
You aren't concerned with civility or the quality of input, only people.

It's also how you can respond to a completely civil post with "dumb ****" despite frequently whining about said poster being an ass. You only care about who makes the post, not what the post contains. Dumb ****.
Did you not open your post with the claim that his point of view was nothing more than "idiot fanboyism"? You don't feel that effectively establishes the tone of your post quite quickly? Where was that civility you were talking about??

I understand what you are saying here though. You are tacitly calling me a hypocrite. That's fine. I know that the majority of my posts are aimed at providing positive and helpful advice to people I've never met and never will with the aim of improving my own musical knowledge and that of other's.

This thread is clearly asking for opinions and discussion regarding Jimi Hendrix's technique.

koslack was making the point that technique is not the be all and end all of being a good guitar player. There is something else that is important. koslack described that something as an ability to express themselves or to "say" something. Other's might call it "the X factor", "je ne sais quoi", creative talent, or a number of other labels.

The fact that he compared Jimi to Malmsteen was a contrast of technical style. The claim that Jimi says more in one bar than Malmsteen does in 30 years is quite obviously and clearly a subjective statement based on the speaker's personal opinion.

Yeah I've called you out when you said Jimi was a terrible composer. And Yes, it absolutely had to do with the fact that it was you who posted expressed that opinion.

I freely admit that had it been anyone else I would have had a pointless but respectful argument based on subjective opinions and taste where both parties know that's all it is - a disagreement of taste.

However, when you stated an opinion about "most guitar gods being terrible composer's" all I tried to do was to apply your own standards of an unrelenting requirement for objective facts to substantiate every subjective point of view that someone posts.

The fact that the irony of it sailed clean over your head like a cosmonaut said more about you than it did me. I thought it was hilarious. I tried to drag it out for as long as I could hoping you would eventually get the point, but you gave up instead which was funny though slightly less satisfying.

You can think of me as a hypocrite if you want. Your opinion or approval is of very little no value to me.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jul 30, 2009,
#24
Quote by Archeo Avis



Of course they would. Guitar as an instrument has been steadily developing since its invention. The notion that only one person is capable of developing a technique is ridiculous; as if no one, anywhere, would think of depressing the whammy bar if Hendrix hadn't done it.


no. of course the whammy bar has been in use by people before him and probably would have been used after. but if you listen to people like satch and vai, they got all that stuff from hendrix. the whammy trills and making it "cricket" and things like that are from jimi. no one really used the bar to its full potential until him. same with the wah pedal. it was around before jimi, but people like jimi and clapton helped make it what it is today.

your post is actually quite stupid. sure someone else could have come along eventually and used the bar like jimi did but the fact remains that jimi was the person who really popularized it and helped people realize just what could be done with it.

no matter what, someone will always come along in time and change the way we think about music and how it or an instrument is played. hendrix was one of them. i dont care if you dont like him its true. if it were someone else, then we'd be talking about them. but it wasnt. another person like this would be paganini. before him, violinist were more concerned with proper intonation and sight reading than with the type of playing paganini was doing. he, like hendrix, helped change how violin was played. even if he didnt invent the techniques, he took them to new limits. which is what hendrix did. buddy guy was using feedback before jimi. but jimi experimented a lot more with it than he did.
Last edited by Blind In 1 Ear at Jul 30, 2009,
#25
Quote by 20Tigers
koslack was making the point that technique is not the be all and end all of being a good guitar player. There is something else that is important. koslack described that something as an ability to express themselves or to "say" something. Other's might call it "the X factor", "je ne sais quoi", creative talent, or a number of other labels.


I'm sorry, but although I agree with the first sentence, I call BS on the rest of the quoted part. "The ability to express ones self," or "the X factor," is not something a specific artist posses because of the music they create or the way they play their instruments. A guy could be sitting in a guitar shop somewhere making music you and I would call pure crap, but in his mind, hes expressing himself.

The "X-Factor" that makes some artists seem to be "expressing themselves," while other artists seem to do nothing but wanking, is nothing more than the personal preference of the person making those claims being projected.

Saying "Hendrix had the ability to express himself more than that other guy," is retarded. That just means you like his music more. Maybe other musicians play too fast for you, or too heavy, or their voices are too whiny, or shrill, or w/e. That doesn't mean they lack "a creative talent" or "can't express themselves," so they make the type of music they do. It just means you don't like it.

You can express yourself through any type of art, and you don't need any sort of X-Factor or whatever to do it. Theres no "right way" to express yourself so no one artist is better than the other at it.
#27
Quote by Axe720
I'm sorry, but although I agree with the first sentence, I call BS on the rest of the quoted part. "The ability to express ones self," or "the X factor," is not something a specific artist posses because of the music they create or the way they play their instruments. A guy could be sitting in a guitar shop somewhere making music you and I would call pure crap, but in his mind, hes expressing himself.

The "X-Factor" that makes some artists seem to be "expressing themselves," while other artists seem to do nothing but wanking, is nothing more than the personal preference of the person making those claims being projected.

Saying "Hendrix had the ability to express himself more than that other guy," is retarded. That just means you like his music more. Maybe other musicians play too fast for you, or too heavy, or their voices are too whiny, or shrill, or w/e. That doesn't mean they lack "a creative talent" or "can't express themselves," so they make the type of music they do. It just means you don't like it.

You can express yourself through any type of art, and you don't need any sort of X-Factor or whatever to do it. Theres no "right way" to express yourself so no one artist is better than the other at it.

i agree. id say the "X-factor" really is just someone that seems to appeal to a vast amount of people. jimi did have that and still does. now what that is exactly is hard to say. but yes, i wouldnt say he could express himself more than anyone else. more people seem to relate to his songs and playing style though for whatever reason.
#28
Quote by Axe720
I'm sorry, but although I agree with the first sentence, I call BS on the rest of the quoted part. "The ability to express ones self," or "the X factor," is not something a specific artist posses because of the music they create or the way they play their instruments. A guy could be sitting in a guitar shop somewhere making music you and I would call pure crap, but in his mind, hes expressing himself.

The "X-Factor" that makes some artists seem to be "expressing themselves," while other artists seem to do nothing but wanking, is nothing more than the personal preference of the person making those claims being projected.

Saying "Hendrix had the ability to express himself more than that other guy," is retarded. That just means you like his music more. Maybe other musicians play too fast for you, or too heavy, or their voices are too whiny, or shrill, or w/e. That doesn't mean they lack "a creative talent" or "can't express themselves," so they make the type of music they do. It just means you don't like it.

You can express yourself through any type of art, and you don't need any sort of X-Factor or whatever to do it. Theres no "right way" to express yourself so no one artist is better than the other at it.
Whether someone has those things or not is pretty much a matter of personal opinion. I agree completely.

But personal opinion is the only basis by which artistic expression can really be judged.

That makes everybody's views as to what constitute art valid.

We might go into detail explaining why we find one artist's expression "better" or more appealing than the other's but all that does is begin to outline the values by which one is judging the art. However when it comes to art what we place value on is purely subjective and a matter of taste.

But that's my point. His statement is quite obviously a subjective statement about his personal tastes and preferences there is no inference to objectivity. Is it really that hard to see??

Attempting to force artistic expression or someone's judgement about artistic expression into an objective framework is a completely pointless exercise. There is no objective framework when it comes to art.

We can agree by consensus on the values we use to judge artistic merit or one's ability to effectively express themselves artistically but those values can be easily dismissed in favour of others.

In fact one doesn't even need to be able to explain why they like something (hence where the je ne sais quoi and x factor terms come from" but can make the claim that it is the greatest work of art in history and what they are saying is still true in a subjective sense and every bit as valid as the guy who says it's crap.

It's a matter of understanding through context whether the discussion is subjective or objective in nature. It's not really that hard to do. But some people do have a problem with it and will only accept objectivity as any kind of substantive discourse.

Bringing objective standards into a discussion of subjective interpretation is about as fruitfull as you asking whether blue or red has a longer wavelength and I answer by saying Yellow is a happier colour than both of them.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jul 30, 2009,
#29
jimi was an incredible musician in my opinion, people give him a bad name because of drugs and stuff but really, name a musician from that time who didn't do that? He brought a new light to guitar playing
Gotta keep my eyes from the circling skies...
tounge tied and twisted just an earth bound misfit...

>CRYPTIC METAPHOR<


Quote by ilikepirates
ilikeyou.

not hated
#30
Quote by 20Tigers
Whether someone has those things or not is pretty much a matter of personal opinion. I agree completely.

But personal opinion is the only basis by which artistic expression can really be judged.

That makes everybody's views as to what constitute art valid.

We might go into detail explaining why we find one artist's expression "better" or more appealing than the other's but all that does is begin to outline the values by which one is judging the art. However when it comes to art what we place value on is purely subjective and a matter of taste.

But that's my point. His statement is quite obviously a subjective statement about his personal tastes and preferences there is no inference to objectivity. Is it really that hard to see??

Attempting to force artistic expression or someone's judgement about artistic expression into an objective framework is a completely pointless exercise. There is no objective framework when it comes to art.

We can agree by consensus on the values we use to judge artistic merit or one's ability to effectively express themselves artistically but those values can be easily dismissed in favour of others.

In fact one doesn't even need to be able to explain why they like something (hence where the je ne sais quoi and x factor terms come from" but can make the claim that it is the greatest work of art in history and what they are saying is still true in a subjective sense and every bit as valid as the guy who says it's crap.

It's a matter of understanding through context whether the discussion is subjective or objective in nature. It's not really that hard to do. But some people do have a problem with it and will only accept objectivity as any kind of substantive discourse.

Bringing objective standards into a discussion of subjective interpretation is about as fruitfull as you asking whether blue or red has a longer wavelength and I answer by saying Yellow is a happier colour than both of them.


I agree with most of the above. You can say "Artist 1 appeals to me more than Artist 2." Thats your opinon and you have your right to it.

But anyone who says something like Koslack said, such as "Artist 1 says more though his music," doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He wasn't saying that as his opinon, he was stating it like a fact. He wasn't saying "Artist 1 appeals to me more," he was saying "Artist 1 says more through his music than Artist 2 ever will." That makes no sense.

I can say I can box better than some other guy. We can test that, because we know the objective of boxing is to land as many punches on the opponent while taking as few punches as possible yourself. We could definitivley prove who is the better boxer at that point in time because we know how to gauge that. But "saying something," with your music" is such an abstract term there is no way to gauge it.

Personal preference is great. I have music I like, and music I don't. But my preferences don't act as facts that prove one artist can say more with his music than any other artist. If I DO say something like "Artist 1 says WAAAY more with his music than artist 2 ever could," thats nothing more than my personal preferences being projected into a statement with no evidence (or basis for that matter) to prove it.
#31
your post is actually quite stupid. sure someone else could have come along eventually and used the bar like jimi did but the fact remains that jimi was the person who really popularized it and helped people realize just what could be done with it.


Irrelevant. My post was in reply to the claim that said techniques would not exist without Hendrix. Please, read the thread before you jump in.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#32
Quote by Archeo Avis
I personally find his music boring and cold.

Boring and cold? Seriously?
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#33
Quote by Axe720
But anyone who says something like Koslack said, such as "Artist 1 says more though his music," doesn't make any sense whatsoever. He wasn't saying that as his opinon, he was stating it like a fact. He wasn't saying "Artist 1 appeals to me more," he was saying "Artist 1 says more through his music than Artist 2 ever will." That makes no sense.

I can say I can box better than some other guy. We can test that, because we know the objective of boxing is to land as many punches on the opponent while taking as few punches as possible yourself. We could definitivley prove who is the better boxer at that point in time because we know how to gauge that. But "saying something," with your music" is such an abstract term there is no way to gauge it.

Personal preference is great. I have music I like, and music I don't. But my preferences don't act as facts that prove one artist can say more with his music than any other artist. If I DO say something like "Artist 1 says WAAAY more with his music than artist 2 ever could," thats nothing more than my personal preferences being projected into a statement with no evidence (or basis for that matter) to prove it.
The fact that he used language that implies a truth statement is irrelevant. He was making a truth statement a statement about subjective truth. His statement is valid and according to his subjective viewpoint it is sound. According to Archeo's subjective point of view it is not (Archeo doesn't like Hendrix). That's absolutely fine, either way it's a valid statement.

He shouldn't have to qualify each sentence with "this is my opinion". The context and the topic of discussion should be enough for any reasonable person to understand that he is not talking about any kind of objective reality because such a claim would be impossible. Invalidating his claim by appealing to the need for objective standards is insane.

I'm just saying given the topic one should assume his statement was a statement about his subjective reality and not a claim about some verifiable testable universal truth. It's really not that hard to look at the context use some common sense and determine whether a statement is subjective or objective in nature.

If I say hey Vincent Van Gogh was so much better than Picasso. He just says so much more with each brush stroke than Picasso said in a lifetime. I'm clearly expressing my personal opinion that Van Gogh's work "speaks to me" in a way that Picasso's doesn't. There is no attempt at universal testable and verifiable fact it is just an opinion.

My claim that Van Gogh is better than Picasso is a statement of personal opinion. Any supporting statement that is given to corroborate this will also be subjective in nature. Hence my second claim is also subjective. Now even if I say the second statement without the first then the first is implied.

If I try to use objective truths to justify my personal preference then I fail for it is then and only then that I am claiming some universal truth to my personal preference and seriously, how arrogant is that?? (Though I have seen people attempt exactly that in this forum!!)

Since it makes no sense to refer to objective truth to support one's subjective preferences so too it makes no sense to argue against someone else's subjective point of view by appealing to a need for objective standards.

Of course it is quite possible that someone can make such a claim and not understand the difference between objective and subjective reality. But that doesn't mean their statement is in anyway less subjective. The fact is the statement still reflects the speakers subjective reality and not some objective truth independent of their experience.

What the TS is asking is about what we value when assessing artistic expression using Jimi Hendrix as an example. That is a question about the subjective views we each hold.

What the guy said was that flawless technique is not extremely high up on his value base when it comes to assessing artistic expression through the guitar. Instead he values artists that "speak to him". But what does that mean? Well if you have to ask, you'll never know. It's the equivalent of saying I can't put it into words exactly but there's something about his playing that is just better. Je ne sais quoi.

One can easily disagree with him simply on the grounds that they place a higher value on technical skill and they find Malmsteen's playing far more exciting and beautiful when compared to Jimi Hendrix who is too noisy and dirty.

But there is still no objectivity as the question remains - what should we value.

Anyway that's all I got for tonight.

Peace.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jul 30, 2009,
#34
Quote by 20Tigers
(Really long post)


I get what you're saying, but my point stands. That wasn't his opinion. He clearly said "Artist 1 says more with his one bar of his music than artist 2 does in a lifetime of making music!"

And I explained in my above posts why that makes no sense whatsoever.
#35
Quote by Axe720
I get what you're saying, but my point stands. That wasn't his opinion. He clearly said "Artist 1 says more with his one bar of his music than artist 2 does in a lifetime of making music!"

And I explained in my above posts why that makes no sense whatsoever.

OK I got one more

It was an opinion.

That sentence "Artist 1 says more with his one bar of his music than artist 2 does in a lifetime of making music!". Can not be anything OTHER than a subjective point of view (an opinion).

The language implies a truth statement but it is true for the speaker so he is entitled to say it.
Si
#36
Quote by Archeo Avis
Please, enough with the idiot fanboyism. Don't discuss the listener's subjective interpretation of a piece of music as if it were an objective property of the music itself. The statement "Hendrix says more in one bar than x guitarist does in x time" is completely baseless unless you define "says" is some way that is non-subjective and quantifiable. I personally find his music boring and cold.


Of course they would. Guitar as an instrument has been steadily developing since its invention. The notion that only one person is capable of developing a technique is ridiculous; as if no one, anywhere, would think of depressing the whammy bar if Hendrix hadn't done it.

I'm reporting this thread, since the only purpose seems to be to talk about the TS' favorite guitarist is better than every other guitarist.



You can absolutely measure what Jimi 'said' in his music. He is still held up a the epitome of soulful playing by millions. Ever heard the expression '20 million Elvis fans can't be wrong?' Totally reasonable. Malmsteen? Only remembered by a small sect of guitarists who totally miss the forest for the trees. Great art lasts. Bad art gets adopted by a bunch of stoned high school kids in Iron Maiden shirts.
So please, get off your high horse. And stop crying about the content of threads. Marketplace of ideas, my friend. Let the users determine what should be discussed. If you don't like it, trust me, it's a big internet. I'm sure you'll find somewhere else to occupy your self-importance.
Last edited by koslack at Jul 30, 2009,
#37
Quote by koslack
You can absolutely measure what Jimi 'said' in his music. He is still held up a the epitome of soulful playing by millions. Ever heard the expression '20 million Elvis fans can't be wrong?' Totally reasonable. Malmsteen? Only remembered by a small sect of guitarists who totally miss the forest for the trees. Great art lasts. Bad art gets adopted by a bunch of stoned high school kids in Iron Maiden shirts.
So please, get off your high horse. And stop crying about the content of threads. Marketplace of ideas, my friend. Let the users determine what should be discussed. If you don't like it, trust me, it's a big internet. I'm sure you'll find somewhere else to occupy your self-importance.


The problem is that you arbitrarily cut your reasoning short, failing to take it to its logical extreme. Assuming that record sales are a direct indicator of how much one "says" with music, the following is the list of musicians who "say" the most, in order...

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Bing Crosby
4. Michael Jackson
5. ACDC
5. A. R. Rahman

In fact, Hendrix is most certainly in the lower range as far as musicians go. Not even on the radar. Even the Backstreet Boys say orders of magnitude more. Hendrix may "say" more than Malmsteen, but relatively speaking, neither of them are "saying" much at all. Hendrix is popular among guitarists. In popular culture, he's "that guitarist who is supposed to be really good...or so I've heard".

Art that is released, finds a persistent fanbase, and is preserved over generations lasts. Art that fails to do this for any one of a million reasons is forgotten.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 30, 2009,
#38
Quote by Archeo Avis
The problem is that you arbitrarily cut your reasoning short, failing to take it to its logical extreme. Assuming that record sales are a direct indicator of how much one "says" with music, the following is the list of musicians who "say" the most, in order...

1. The Beatles
2. Elvis Presley
3. Bing Crosby
4. Michael Jackson
5. ACDC
5. A. R. Rahman

In fact, Hendrix is most certainly in the lower range as far as musicians go. Not even on the radar. Even the Backstreet Boys say orders of magnitude more. Hendrix may "say" more than Malmsteen, but relatively speaking, neither of them are "saying" much at all.

Art that is released, finds a persistent fanbase, and is preserved over generations lasts. Art that fails to do this for any one of a million reasons is forgotten.

That's not what he was saying and you know it. C'mon.
Banging on a trash can
Drumming on a street light
#39
Quote by BigFatSandwich
That's not what he was saying and you know it. C'mon.


Of course it is. He used the size of the fanbase as a measure of how much one "says" with music. Record sales are a reasonable indicator of the size of the fanbase (certainly better than nothing, which is what was offered to substantiate that claim that Hendrix' fanbase is uniquely large).

Onward comes 20Tigers to say that my post is wrong because I made it, and then adopt the exact same position I take in my post in a later thread.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jul 30, 2009,
#40
hendrix was a god for what he was able to accomplish and the influence and ingenuity he brought to the electric guitar and wah in his 27 short years on this planet. Too bad we'll never see how high he could've flown.
Page 1 of 2