He's not great because he didn't have many technical skills. He's not great because he wasn't able to play complicated pieces. He's not great because he only knew a very limited subset of music.
I think the best two ways to sum it up are to point out that Hendrix songs all sound like Hendrix songs - because they had to. Hendrix was unable to play the same thing twice, because he lacked the ability to play better.
His live stuff sucks, more often than not.
I'd put him at the level of a 2 to 4 year guitar student.
He has other traits that make him an exciting addition to music. He has all sorts of great qualities. Just that those qualities are not being a great guitarist.
The things he's credited with innovating aren't actually his innovations. He wasn't the first to use feedback, wah pedal, distortion, blues riffs, or anything like that.
He knew maybe a half-dozen scales and used three of them.
He knew a dozen chord shapes - at most.
He knew how to bend, fuzz, and distort.
Frankly, I expect the hoodlum to be better than Hendrix - within a year and a half, at current progression rates.
I suspect the hype came from him being different.
He was a brilliant artist. He was a wonderful composer - though that's from a likability point and not from an understanding of music theory. He was still reasonably original. He was a great performer and an interesting person.
He also had the benefit of dying young, so people remember the good and not the horrible live shit that he did. Seriously, his live shit was horrible more often than it was good.
But, what can be taken from this is that Hendrix' greatest demonstration was that you can make good music without actually being a master guitarist. I like his music. I can take a Hendrix song and riff on it - for hours.
He was a great asset to music - just not the greatest guitarist. He didn't HAVE to be the greatest guitarist. His other areas of ability made up for this. He made good music, despite of his limitations.
That's something to be inspired by, and not hidden under the falsehood that he was a great guitarist.
I think this is what the NYT should have said about him, it shows a clear understanding of what he brought to the table and how he added to the art without inflating his ability. So well said Mr Buddha
It does make me curious as to how many people have come away from my articles with the impression that I don't like Hendrix.
I tell 'em - every damned week - that I like Hendrix. I say it in new and interesting ways, in pretty much every single intro.
This week, I expanded on it a little - but I largely say the same thing, every single week.
I've never once said (nor have I intentionally implied) that I don't like Hendrix. Nor have I intentionally implied that he didn't do great things. I've said, over and over again, that he's actually been a great asset to musicianship, an inspiration, and was a wonderful artist.
Artist...
Not guitarist.
This is about the technical ability to play their chosen instrument. It's my belief that calling him the "greatest guitarist" is a disservice to people who are actually great guitarists.
It's not ego when I say the following:
I'm a better guitarist than Hendrix was.
I can't compose like he did. I don't have the stage presence he had. I don't write like he did. I don't have the strong personality that he had. I do not have, nor will I ever have, the fame that he had.
I do play guitar better than he ever dreamed of playing. From a technical standpoint, there's nothing that Hendrix could play that I can't replicate. There's a ton of stuff that I can play that Hendrix could never learn - ever. Even if he could fashion something similar, there's no way he'd have had the skills to replicate it consistently or faithfully.
That's not ego - that's just the way it is.
I'm not saying Hendrix sucked. I'm saying he wasn't a great guitarist - by the metrics that I've applied. Those metrics weren't applied to spite Hendrix. Those metrics were applied to bring other guitarists, with greater ability, to light.
At the end of the day, he was still a rock star and a great addition to musicianship. That he was able to go so far, with so very little skill, is a testament to his strength and creativity.
If I had half his creativity, you'd never have met me. I'd be a long-since dead and famous rock star.
He just wasn't a very skilled guitarist. You could spend the next six months learning to replicate Foxy Lady - and probably come out the other side being able to consistently play it better than he could, and that's starting from where you are right now. My guesstimate is that it'd take you about six months, from your current position.
Speaking of which, you should play me a scale!
I should play you a scale, I’ll remind myself to do it later tonight.
(post is archived)