#1
read so many threads and polls showing hendrix as the be all end all. Superb guitar player, insane songwriter, able to bring the dead back to life. I always thought of hendrix as an amazing and rare rare innovator. Songwriter? I owned alot of hendrix albums back in the day, and lets just say 70% of his songs are easily forgetable. As in crap or boring or sloppy. My personal favorites were Angel(dunno if thats the real title) All along the watch tower, and voodoo chile. But amazing songwriter?

I think its one of the things where the legend is bigger than the actual man. Although i would never criticize his guitar innovation. If im correct he changed the way chords were being used. Supposedly his solos are kinda meh as well. He seems like he would have been a better piece of a great band, not a control group like he had. Mitch mitchell seemed to improvise his playing live like he forgot the song. Jimi had weird rhythms so some of the songs are difficult to find a beat for, mitch skipped that learning process and just sprayed fills all over, omg its cool my drum sounds a machine gun, blam blam blam.

Dont get me wrong, what he has that is great is really really great. He in a way reminds me of a friend of mine who has been playing for like 19 years. He has no formal teaching, never touched theory, says he found scales on his own. Basically played acoustic for 10 years and just got good from fiddling around. He doesnt do well in bands because he learned in a bubble and so is very very picky about who he will play with. Jimi reminds me of that. In live footage jimi looks at mitch mitchell doing those spray gun fills and the only thing missing is a head shake of disgust. If you listen to alot of hendrix the time seems off and or very very weird.

Either way am i mistaken or is this valid.
Last edited by guygroomes85 at Apr 19, 2016,
#2
I'm sure as he got older and all he heard from every crowd was "Foxy Lady" or "Purple Haze" when all he wanted at that point in his career creating a fusion of Funk [try Maggot Brain by Funkadelics} and blues and rock. Just listen to Eddie Hazel on the title song "Maggot Brain". Jimi would probably wonder what he was doing all his life! But that was right before he died. He comes up with the music with Band of Gypsies and gets heckled. I don't know how much exposure you've had to older Jimi written when he was 23 or 24, but the 2nd album "Axis: Bold as Love" is indescribably good for a boy his age and the licks he played while singing are phenomenal, and we both have been around long enough to know how hard it is to a complex rhythm, let alone breaking chords down to individual notes. He was depressed and fried and looking for meaning by the time he was 26
Jim
Last edited by jimpyron58 at Apr 19, 2016,
#3
1) Polls are useless generally, but Jimi is not overrated. He was universally admired and respected by his peers. He didn't shoot to fame because of his looks, he shot to the top because he blew everyone's minds.

2) Jimi was an amazing songwriter because he could innovate. He wrote progressions and put together songs that were unique and moved all of music forward. His music is still progressive by today's standards and no one has really replaced him yet. Try writing Castles Made of Sand, Little Wing, Axis Bold as Love, Wind Cries Mary, Spanish Castle Magic etc. those are all very original and great songs. They just released some of his unfinished works in people Hell and Angels a few years ago and even that demo dwarfed every rock record I've heard in a long time, including Jack White, the Black Keys etc.- who make great rock albums.

3) The Live clips that are out there do not generally do Jimi justice and most people filling forums with "jimi is overrated" have never sat and listened to an album- judge him by his albums because that's where his energy went - layering, arranging, composing, sound design etc. and that's how the music is meant to be heard. His music was difficult to recreate live for technical reasons mostly ( i.e. gear and players - there was only one of him!), though he does have some great live performances.

4) Hendrix's ability on guitar is deceiving by today's standards - he did not play cleanly like Satriani or today's shredders - he was chaotic when soloing and not afraid to take risks and make noise - what he sometimes lacked in finesse when soloing he made up for in creativity and unique note and rhythm choices. His rhythm playing remains unsurpassed in rock, even today. The best people can pull off is throwing in a few of his flourishes, but he had full command of a unique rhythm style- he could improvise rhythm parts that were incredibly unique and complex on the fly, incorporating every aspect- bass lines, double stops, slides, high notes, low notes, bends etc - to him it was effortless.

5) It's important to remember that he recorded all of his music in a few short years and died at the age of 27.
Last edited by reverb66 at Apr 19, 2016,
#4
Yeah i was asking wether or not. I haven't heard the older stuff. Like i said at one point i owned alot of albums. Alot of it could have been because its very low fi. Definatley wish he would have lived longer i bet he would have joined a better band. Mitch mitchell was not the drummer for him. Imagine what he could do with a tony royster or dennis chambers, jojo mayer. Thats what he needed. I just dont see the songwriter part though. I would disagree, and not for a lack of practice, maybe because he learned in a bubble. I dont know though. It might be the song structures to me as a drummer and a newer guitar play(been playing drums for a long long time) They timing almost seems wacked, not like prog rock either.
Last edited by guygroomes85 at Apr 20, 2016,