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.
Sweet!
Tomorrow night is the weekly guitar thread - and I'll happily listen here, if you decide to not post it there!
I'd suggest that easy pentatonic that I've ranted about - preferably in A! You can play whatever you want, however.
(post is archived)