|
> How much of his
>>recorded output would really be
>>classified as "funk" anyway?
>
>At the time none of it
>would be considered funk.
>When Jimi was out, funk
>was pretty much James Brown
>style. My point is
>that Jimi Hendrix was the
>birth of the Funk movement.
> He is the missing
>link between James Brown Style
>and Funkadelic. Hendrix made
>groups like Funkadelic expand upon
>the music and make funk
>a larger more cutting edge
>sound. And Machine Gun
>is probably the funkiest song
>ever. It is an
>epic. Hendrix was responsible
>for influencing Miles to expand
>into funk. The Isley
>brothers also moved towards guitar
>driven funk themselves.
I agree with much of the above paragraph, but while Jimi carried the funk ethic and elements of his music later turned up in conventional funk, his music wasn't inherently funky in the way James' or Sly's was. Yes, it's just a word, but given the standard definition, I simply don't think that Jimi accurately fits the title of "funkiest musician ever".
>>
>>This seems to me to be
>>striking exaggeration. He was a
>>brilliant writer and an incredible
>>creative force on the guitar,
>>and yes, we owe much
>>of the modern development of
>>that instrument to him, but
>>there are many areas Jimi
>>came up short in.
>
>His singing has nothing to do
>with his musicianship.
If we're discussing solely his contributions as a guitar player or composer, then I would agree with you. But to me, the title "greatest American musician of all time" implies a certain well rounded profiency in all of one's chosen forms of musical expression. Jimi was a (sometimes painfully) poor singer.
If
>you were to put some
>fabricated standard to judge an
>artist there would be some
>areas where Jimi wouldn't get
>the highest marks. My
>criteria is if you took
>the greatest of a particular
>instrument and judged how much
>more creative and relevant that
>person would be than the
>other greats of that particular
>instrument. Jimi is so
>much more creative than any
>other guitarist, he is definitely
>at the top of the
>list.
Judging him against the standard pantheon of "guitar greats" (i.e. Clapton, Beck, Page, EVH) he is by far the most progressive and creative, yes. Broadening scope somewhat, however, I am comfortable saying that a Zappa or a Keneally often takes bigger risks with (sometimes) better aural results. It isn't that I fail to appreciate Jimi's genius, I just don't think he can fairly be given the GOAT label.
>
>> *Firstly, his singing
>>falls somewhere between passable and
>>unlistenable. He simply wasn't a
>>singer, and he readily acknowledged
>>that.
>
>
>Bob Dylan?? Jimi was a
>blues man. You don't
>judge blues men on their
>ability to sing.
But we aren't judging Jimi in the context of blues men. We're discussing "the greatest American musician in any genre or era ever". It seems to me that "greatest acid bluesman" ever would be a more apt title within the context you're providing, and I would take no issue with that claim.
You
>judge them on how they
>communicate their message. How
>the sound and resonance(sic) of
>their voice demaonstrates the content
>of what their singing.
I understand your point. But I don't think Jimi Hendrix illustrates it as well as say, Son House.
There's a difference between inspired but technically flawed singing and offkey nasal droning. Jimi often fell more towards the latter.
>> *In live settings
>>he was often hideously sloppy.
>
>Not sloppy, real. Jimi live
>is real living music. That's
>what makes it great.
>You hear it differently every
>time. You marvel at
>the fact that such an
>incredibly large sound is coming
>from 3 people.
Sometimes, yes. Other times I marvel at the fact that the audience didn't storm the box office demanding their money back. He was sometimes so out of it that they'd get through whole songs before realizing that he and Noel were playing in different keys altogether. He'd repeat verses and forget lyrics. His experiments with feedback often went from interesting to tedious to unbearable. When he was on, he was transcendental (i.e. Band of Gypsies), and when he wasn't, he sometimes sounded like shit. I don't think that's being unfair.
>
>>His limited singing ability becomes
>>even more apparent, and it
>>wasn't unusual for him to
>>forget the lyrics to a
>>song altogether and stumble into
>>something else.
>
>Improvisational.
One would hardly classify the mixup "you know you're a cute little heartbreaker....and you know you're a sweet little...uh..heartbreaker" as improvisation. It's slop, and it's an obvious trend through much of his live performances. And it's understandable given the abuse he subjected his body to, but honor his memory and have the integrity to recognize his drug-addled mistakes as such.
> Live, his guitar
>>playing ranges from ethereal to
>>just straight up slop.
>
>The Isles of Wright concert was
>a few days before Jimi's
>death. He was obviously
>depressed, broken, and drained.
I'm not sure which show you're referring to here. He played the Isle of Wight on August 30, a good three weeks in advance of his death. He then played the Isle of Fehmarn festival on September 6, his last official concert.
>His playing on that concert
>with his cracking voice is
>so real and earthy.
>On the edge of suicide
>Jimi was still doing things
>no one else has ever
>done.
Neither performance (particularly the Isle of Wight, where his playing was mostly rushed and forced) came even close to what Jimi was capable of and had demonstrated in the past. It would be nice to know that he went out on the highest note possible but our knowledge of those shows doesn't really bear that out.
Name one guitar
>player who could play both
>guitar parts at the same
>time without missing a step.
What specifically are you referring to here? Multitudes of guitarists integrate rhythm and lead parts seamlessly. Prince happens to fit this description as well.
>
>>"the greatest American born musician
>>of all time". Just as
>>the most ready example, Prince
>>already, in my mind, has
>>him beat by a long
>>shot in terms of being
>>a complete musician.
>>
>things of a shorter length often
>have a greater impact.
>Prince is a pop star.
This is irrelevant.
> Some consider him a
>joke now.
Also irrelevant.
Jimi has
>been dead for 30 years
>and no one would consider
>his music out of step.
> Prince is great.
>I love P. But
>he will never have the
>legacy of Jimi Hendrix.
>Never.
I'm not questioning his legacy. I am in complete agreement that Jimi Hendrix's likeness will be reproduced in blacklight poster form far more than Prince Rogers Nelson in the years to come. But we're discussing musical ability.
In any event, my main contention here is with the need to assign labels such as "the greatest" or "funkiest" in general. Jimi was an incredible person and musician, and contrary to the impression I've doubtlessly given above, I am a big fan of his music. I am, however, wary of kneejerk proclamations of ultimate greatness. Let's keep things in perspective.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson 
:o:o
