Why is Hendrix so revered amongst guitarists?

Danny1969

The post about EVH remind me actually that when I first heard some of his stuff I didn't even realize it was a guitar making those sounds. I thought the tapped harmonics intro to Women in love was a keyboard and didn't know what the hell was doing the intro to Mean Streets ...... up to that point no one played guitar like that, it was a completely different way of playing. So for me he had a bigger impact than Hendrix, Because as great as Jimi was his playing was still pretty contemporary in terms of technique.  

koneguitarist

no not about much in 65 but how about much earlier twin lead work. and Roy Clark, doing guitar techniques way before rock added them with distortion. 

 So many guitar techniques and styles came out of some of the hottest guitarists around, who most will never remember as they were considered novelty acts back in 50's. So yes, people could play faster and with better technique and with a wider range of styles than Hendrix way before he came on the scene, and it's the same today, Albert Lee blazed the trail for Brad Paisley, even though Brad is the far superior guitarist now, Hendrix blazed the trail for EVH and lots more modern rock players, due to his use of the new items at his disposal Marshall and Fuzz Boxes etc. 

Is he any more important than Jimmy Bryant or Albert Lee.? In his field of rock yes.

 Does he deserve all the superlatives tossed about that he was the greatest etc, in my opinion, No

Drew_TNBD

Nobody cares. Shut up. You old old man.

ToneControl

koneguitarist said:

no not about much in 65 but how about much earlier twin lead work. and Roy Clark, doing guitar techniques way before rock added them with distortion. 

 So many guitar techniques and styles came out of some of the hottest guitarists around, who most will never remember as they were considered novelty acts back in 50's. So yes, people could play faster and with better technique and with a wider range of styles than Hendrix way before he came on the scene, and it's the same today, Albert Lee blazed the trail for Brad Paisley, even though Brad is the far superior guitarist now, Hendrix blazed the trail for EVH and lots more modern rock players, due to his use of the new items at his disposal Marshall and Fuzz Boxes etc. 

Is he any more important than Jimmy Bryant or Albert Lee.? In his field of rock yes.

 Does he deserve all the superlatives tossed about that he was the greatest etc, in my opinion, No

yes, more polished and fast, with no mistakes, it's all there. No one should be surprised really, Teles, strats & other electrics weren't invented in 1966, and Jazz and country always demanded top-notch technique

It's an accepted fact in science that if Einstein  had dropped dead with measles, someone else would have made the next step pretty soon after he would have. No one person is so unique that without them, advances would never have been made.  However, people want heroes & messiahs. Human nature I assume. In a parallel universe without Hendrix, guitar-land would not actually be very different, since he did not open any doors that were shut to all others

Just a shame Hendrix didn't get someone in to help write more good tracks, and a shame he didn't play badly live so much, whether that be caused by drugs or whatever.

SimonC

It's all very well theorising that "If he hadn't done it then someone else would have"

The facts are that it was him that made the advances, no-one else did.

That applies to Hendrix as well as Einstein

Fretwired

The Tielman Brothers from Indonesia playing Indo-rock in Germany in the 1950s. They settled in Holland and became very famous. First Les Paul twin guitar set up in Europe [Andy Tielman thought he had the first Les Paul in Europe] and on stage antics to rival Hendrix.

randomhandclaps

SimonC said:

It's all very well theorising that "If he hadn't done it then someone else would have"

The facts are that it was him that made the advances, no-one else did.

That applies to Hendrix as well as Einstein

And Michael Ryan.

koneguitarist

Drew_fx said:

Nobody cares. Shut up. You old old man.

Yeah let's not facts get in the way that there were better players and guitars only started when Hendrix picked up a strat! L-)

ToneControl

SimonC said:

It's all very well theorising that "If he hadn't done it then someone else would have"

The facts are that it was him that made the advances, no-one else did.

That applies to Hendrix as well as Einstein

I don't think Hendrix changed guitar playing any more than 10 other players of the era. He was however, the best showman.

I'm very opposed to the idea that if 100 people are good at something, and one becomes famous for it, then the other 99 should be ignored and rubbished, to allow the one person to be put on a pedestal. It seems to be human nature to want to identify and worship the sole source of greatness, and to brand everyone else as mediocre. No one listens to any UK artist unless they have been rubber-stamped by Simon Cowell (not you I hope) or Radio 1

In this case, plenty of as-good/better players existed before and after Hendrix who developed new styles at least as revolutionary or distinctive, yet people want to have a hero and disregard the others. Frankly I think it's bad enough that punters do this, but I wish musicians could manage better. How many undiscovered or low-profile virtuosos have you seen? Yet people want to lionise one man as if all others are irrelevant. How many other excellent players were playing in the mid 60s that no one ever heard of? We've had plenty of examples of very musical, fluent and accurate guitar playing from before Hendrix, yet somehow he is the most important, and the legend claims he was mentoring A-list Jazz Royalty trumpeters and bass players in their 40s. Sounds like a religion to me.

koneguitarist

ToneControl said:

SimonC said:

It's all very well theorising that "If he hadn't done it then someone else would have"

The facts are that it was him that made the advances, no-one else did.

That applies to Hendrix as well as Einstein

I don't think Hendrix changed guitar playing any more than 10 other players of the era. He was however, the best showman.

I'm very opposed to the idea that if 100 people are good at something, and one becomes famous for it, then the other 99 should be ignored and rubbished, to allow the one person to be put on a pedestal. It seems to be human nature to want to identify and worship the sole source of greatness, and to brand everyone else as mediocre. No one listens to any UK artist unless they have been rubber-stamped by Simon Cowell (not you I hope) or Radio 1

In this case, plenty of as-good/better players existed before and after Hendrix who developed new styles at least as revolutionary or distinctive, yet people want to have a hero and disregard the others. Frankly I think it's bad enough that punters do this, but I wish musicians could manage better. How many undiscovered or low-profile virtuosos have you seen? Yet people want to lionise one man as if all others are irrelevant. How many other excellent players were playing in the mid 60s that no one ever heard of? We've had plenty of examples of very musical, fluent and accurate guitar playing from before Hendrix, yet somehow he is the most important, and the legend claims he was mentoring A-list Jazz Royalty trumpeters and bass players in their 40s. Sounds like a religion to me.

Post of the topic. Have a wisdom.

Dave_Mc

ICBM said:

Dave_Mc said:

Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but doesn't EVH always say his favourite player was Clapton? Don't get me wrong, I see the Hendrix/showmanship influence on EVH too, and it's certainly possible (more like "probable") he was influenced by both (plus EVH has a bit of a history of, er, telling porkies ) ), but yeah.

(a) He *says* so, yes - but telling porkies is part of his interview history! While I'm not a huge EVH fan and I don't have any of his less well-known material, personally I don't hear a lot (if any) Clapton influence in his playing, but I do hear a huge amount of Blackmore. And hence by extension, Hendrix - although perhaps not as much directly.

(b) On the other hand it's possible that he means that hearing Clapton - which he probably would have before Hendrix and certainly before Blackmore - was his initial influence to take up guitar. I would say the same about Blackmore - he's the first player who inspired me - but I play more like Neil Young .

Dave_Mc said:

Same with EVH, it didn't hurt that more modern guitar effects like OD pedals, modern higher gain amps etc. were starting to come around. Also the Floyd Rose etc. Granted he didn't use those from the get-go, but he got into them pretty quickly once they did come out.

(c) Actually if anything EVH did *more* to force the evolution of the gear than Hendrix. He achieved his sound by brutally modifying his equipment - there were no Floyds, single-humbucker Strats or high-gain Marshall-type amps when he started getting those sounds. The gear makers had to catch up, fast.

With the exception of the Octave fuzz - first built by Roger Mayer for Jimi - he used existing standard equipment. OK it was all relatively new still, but everything else he used had already been by the Beatles, Clapton, Beck, Page and Townshend. He just put the whole package together.

(a) I'm a pretty big EVH fan (obviously- the avatar ) ) but I don't look out for everything he recorded or anything like that. I agree with you, I hear more hendrix than clapton in his playing style. Dunno about blackmore, I'm not that familiar with too much blackmore outside of the really well-known stuff (though I really like his playing that I have heard, just I don't expend too much effort searching out more obscure stuff, I'm kind of lazy like that ) ). I'll take your word for it on the blackmore thing, in other words. )

(b) that could well be it.

(c) Good point.

^ I agree with not putting people on a pedestal either, though I still really like Hendrix (and EVH) and think they had *something* that the others didn't.

koneguitarist

I remember a story about Dave Lee Roth talking guitarists, he was asked who's best Steve Vai or EVH, and he said, well steve is an incredible player that has read all the books and techniques and mastered them all to the nth degree whereas, Eddie absorbed, clapton Hendrix beck page, everyone and came up with his own style. Interviewer said cut the crap, who's best and Dave Lee Roth, said easy, Eddie!

viz

Yeah but that was when he was trying to get back into van halen!

Drew_TNBD

koneguitarist;223170" said:

Drew_fx said:

Nobody cares. Shut up. You old old man.


















Yeah let's not facts get in the way that there were better players and guitars only started when Hendrix picked up a strat! L-)

>:D<

But is that what we're talking about here?

First you asked what made him so special, then you said he was dull, now you're saying people who were technically more skilled than him existed before him.

Just how far ARE you going to keep moving these goalposts??

ICBM

ToneControl said:

In this case, plenty of as-good/better players existed before and after Hendrix who developed new styles at least as revolutionary or distinctive, yet people want to have a hero and disregard the others.

I don't agree, on either count - although there were certainly other important players before him. But Hendrix was more revolutionary and more distinctive than any of them - at the same time.

ToneControl said:

Frankly I think it's bad enough that punters do this, but I wish musicians could manage better.

So why did almost all his contemporaries, great players included, regard him as so much better than themselves? Many of them even changed the way they approached guitar playing as a result.

The "better" players you mention are only better in the way the play the instrument, not the way they create music. To be honest I don't even listen to technique in that sense, I find it and the perfection of it boring. There are thousands of players who can run rings around Hendrix for speed and accuracy. Who cares? Not one of them has changed the way people - musicians and non-musicians alike - think of the electric guitar, in the way he did.

koneguitarist

The goal posts keep getting moved due to lack of any arguments to explain what's so special about him.

 The original question still stands. 

Someone said he was far ahead of his time, my YouTube videos proved that others were playing even more advanced 10years earlier.

Yes he played Marshalls loud, so did Cream, yes he used feedback so did cream, yes he played well, so did a whole host of other guitarists, who were technically and musically far superior.

So after all the evidence that has been shown to me so far, the main thing that we can all agree on is he was very exciting to watch!

koneguitarist

ICBM said:

ToneControl said:

In this case, plenty of as-good/better players existed before and after Hendrix who developed new styles at least as revolutionary or distinctive, yet people want to have a hero and disregard the others.

I don't agree, on either count - although there were certainly other important players before him. But Hendrix was more revolutionary and more distinctive than any of them - at the same time.

ToneControl said:

Frankly I think it's bad enough that punters do this, but I wish musicians could manage better.

So why did almost all his contemporaries, great players included, regard him as so much better than themselves? Many of them even changed the way they approached guitar playing as a result.

The "better" players you mention are only better in the way the play the instrument, not the way they create music. To be honest I don't even listen to technique in that sense, I find it and the perfection of it boring. There are thousands of players who can run rings around Hendrix for speed and accuracy. Who cares? Not one of them has changed the way people - musicians and non-musicians alike - think of the electric guitar, in the way he did.

Hank Marvin did! And I don't like Hank Marvin!

Drew_TNBD

Nah mate, the goalposts keep moving because you're moving them in order to try and win an internet argument. roflcopter alert!

viz

Here's the correct list. I guess Steve Vai must have come in at number 101. http://m.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitarists-20111123

ICBM

koneguitarist said:

Hank Marvin did! And I don't like Hank Marvin!

Hank Marvin was just a guitar player.

Before Hendrix, electric guitar was an instrument, that you amplified - the two things were separate, even if you added a few effects.

After Hendrix, electric guitar was a tool to create sonic art by controlling the sound which came out of the amp - they were one thing.

The only other player I can think of who even comes close to being as revolutionary as that is Charlie Christian, who was probably the first to play electric guitar as a lead instrument - but he didn't change his whole genre of music with it.