egafd.com

On the contrary, it is most decidedly Hendrix/music-indulgent.

I have lectured on the subject at Juilliard, NY; Curtis Institute Of Music, Philadelphia; Royal College Of Music; Trinity College Of Music; Yale University (where I was assistant professor of music for ten years) and the Amsterdam Conservatorium.

Are you Steve Reich in disguise ? Seriously though, what made you think you'd be 'wasting your time' ? I think there's sufficient admiration for Hendrix in the thread, but in that respect where's the challenge in preaching to the converted ?

Yes, perhaps I should not have added that last paragraph.

I do, however, find it irksome that many people cannot see beyond the theatrical extras, such as burning the guitar at Monterey, playing with teeth etc, due to the fact that they are incapable of appreciating his remarkable technique (some of which has still not been adequately figured-out) or his innate grasp of harmony, for example.

Yes I see your point, but the guitar burning was the showbiz aspect which can't be ignored. I would suppose that for most people the initial appeal of Hendrix was the the visceral thrill of the music. For many that may still be Hendrix's USP, that no-one since has bettered that. For others like yourself you've wanted to find out why it works and kind of deconstruct the dynamics of it but not everyone has the desire or the capability to do that.

People relate to music in different ways. An understanding of the complexities of playing and composition etc enriches the music for you and it's great that you get the opportunity to share that, but not everyone wants to go that 'deep'. That doesn't mean that their experience of the music is superficial because it could be equally profound but in a different way.

Oh, I agree absolutely.

Please don't get me wrong; I need to be able to analyze in order that I might teach/explain certain aspects of an artist's technical mechanism to others, but I can just as easily simply listen and find myself transported to other times or places, just as I would suggest to others that they should do.

Nothing baffles me more than the sight of someone at a piano recital, for example, sitting there with pencil, score and notebook in hand and not really listening to a single phrase.

"Clapton (and Beck) were great guitarists, but Jimi was a force of nature"
I agree wholeheartedly with the above quote... Yes there's no doubt that playing with teeth, the fire and other stage gimmicks got him noticed quicker than perhaps he would have done but there was a lot more to him than that. Playing with his teeth was a gimmick granted, but the guy was so good he could actually play proficiently with his teeth! He wasn't merely a great guitarist, a singer-songwriter, a showman etc etc, he was all this and more, as well as being perhaps the most iconic figure of the Flower-Power era. Concentrating on his cultural importance overlooks the music, concentrating on him as a guitarist is also a diservice to the music he wrote and produced... he appeared on the scene with a cover version (albeit an inspired arrangement) and then in a 4-month period brought out 5 great tunes all worthy of 'A'side status (Stone Free, Purple Haze, 51st Aniversary, The Wind Cries Mary & Highway Chile) and then released 3 of the greatest albums of all time within little more than a year. What I think made the difference, and what was emphasised on the BBC programme, is his impact was so great because he arrived on the scene fully formed - the 'gimmicks' were his own, the songs were his own, his style was his own.
I've been listening to his stuff for over 20 years now, since I was 13 and I'm still hearing new things in there. Definitely one of my favourite artists of all time but then again I'm pretty ecletic...

Here's rare, 1981 video footage of Yngwie Malmsteen copying every last Ritchie Blackmore move in the textbook, then trying to set his guitar on fire, a la Jimi Hendrix. As you'll see, he has no luck at it,

What a cunt!!!




Laughed my tits off watching that, then more when he lost his temper. Whats the matter with good old fashioned lighter fuel? I don't know what he was using but it wasn't working!
It would have been even funnier if he burnt his eyebrows off!

Keith Rasputin wrote:

>> I've never read anything dodgy about Chas Chandler, thought he
> produced more than managed...
>
>

He also got VERY rich on Jimi's contract, y'know the one, that Jimis father tried to have cancelled years after Jimi died. Al Hendrix lived a modest lifestyle despite the masses of royalties that Chas enjoyed from Hendrix's output.
Maybe not 'dodgy' as I suggested, but a cynical and calculating cunt