Sickest Possible Guitar Riff Ever.

"He's innovative!" - opinion. Honestly, I don't think he's all that innovative. If he was, no one would like him.

But that was true of Hendrix, believe it or not.

During his lifetime, he released only three albums. You know how artists go on tour to support the release of new albums? Well, for the first album, Jimi toured... as the opening act for the Walker Brothers. After the second one, he toured... as the opening act for Cat Stevens. In between tours, he did club dates... like opening for the Monkees at Whiskey-a-Go-Go.

As far as I know, his first US headlining gig was Woodstock - and he wasn't supposed to headline there, either, even though his third album had reached #1 in the US.

A #1 sounds great, right? Only really famous people get to #1? Think again... it was #1 for just two weeks. And there really wasn't much coming out in October/Nov of 1968 - the #3 at the time was the Rascal's Greatest Hits. Come November, Jimi gets bumped from #1 by Glen Campbell. So it's not like Jimi was really famous - he was WAY below acts like the Beatles, Simon & Garfunkel, Three Dog Night, etc. The kind of act you might have heard once or twice - most people then were still buying singles, and Henrix single from that album (Hey Joe) topped out at #20.

But then a couple things happened. First, that Woodstock thing. Iron Butterfly was supposed to close the show, but they canceled at the last minute. Even after being bumped into the top slot by fortune, they didn't get his name right - the band was introduced as "the Jimi Hendrix Experience", when his band was actually the Band of Gypsies at that point in time. Jimi had to correct the announcer... something people who were actually famous probably wouldn't have to do.

Anyway, Woodstock Festival goes bankrupt, and the investors get the assets - which include rights to the recordings and film. They want to make their money back, so they heavily promoted both. That puts Jimi in front of a bigger audience.

Second, he dies. And he leaves a couple of early recording contracts... contracts for albums that were never released, but which (like many contracts of the day) gave the record company the right to that unreleased album plus a couple more down the road. And Jimi has left tons of recordings on tape.

The next 25 years saw over 200 Hendrix albums released. And many of those were heavily promoted. So what was innovative in 1967 becomes familiar over the next 40 years, helped along by all the publicity.

In addition to opening for the Walker Brothers, he also did a stint opening for some random french dude whose name totally escapes me right now. Totally different vibe. Suffice it to say, it didn't go down well (although the band seemed to have had some fun, based off the few interviews from that time).

And, to nit pick somewhat. If innovation is defined by being unpopular and/or generally disliked, I guess Picasso, Da Vinci, Dyson, the 'guy' who invented the internet, Petrarch/Michaelangelo (whichever did 'invent' sonnet form, depending on your view of 13th century italian literature history), Aristotle, Descartes, and a whole bunch of others were all just wasting their time. There's nothing inherent to "innovation" as a concept which necessitates it being opposed, either at the time it occurred or thereafter. In fact, if it was continually opposed, 'innovation' wouldn't really amount to much, since there would be no reason to innovate and no accepting of past innovations (which in turn spawns the next batch of innovations). To innovate is merely and essentially to change the dominant view and break with what has gone before. Society's appraisal of said innovation is of no bearing on its innovativeness. Your logic is faulty; the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.

Edit - I'm pretty sure the "random french dude" was Johnny Halladay. Props to Kevin below for posting that one.

Which brings me to another thing, it's not possible to put emotion into music. It's a nice ideal but emotions are just chemicals in the brain. They physically can NOT strum a guitar or play any instrument for that matter.
Then I guess you can't show passion, or love, or any emotion. What you feel can be put into anything. To say you can't put emotion into music is just laughable. Sorry. I had a hard time reading your post after that statement.

Vic- Understood about Machine Gun. And I know the version you're referring to. There is a version, which has less of those sounds of bombs, which Wes and I rave about...and that is a version in Kent, Ohio...1970, just a few days after the "Kent State Shootings"...and that version is just magical. It's hard to explain, and I find it just as appealing than the famous Band of Gypsys version. I'm curious, what do you think of Hendrix's song Angel?

Scrybe- You may be thinking of Johnny Halladay. Not sure.

You're right I can't dispute the history but all those reasons you listed, while valid, will have different values from person to person. Whether the music was black, white, easy, hard, not mass marketed etc doesn't really do much for me because at the end of the day, the song will still sound the same. I understand appreciating music more based on where it comes from, but that's not the way I look at it. I listen to a song and either I like it or I don't. Of course, whether or not the songs are good because of where they come from is another topic entirely. That being, if the artist, be it Hendrix or whoever was a sucess because his history gave him alot to write about or feelings to express. That is debatable. But if you take a song, listen to it, then find out the history behind it, and listen to it again, it'll sound the same. Same notes, same tempo, same chords, same vocals, same everything The song hasn't changed but your perceptions of it have.

The innovative thing, what did Hendrix do that no one else had done before?*

*Not being argumentive, just want to know.
Then I guess you can't show passion, or love, or any emotion. What you feel can be put into anything. To say you can't put emotion into music is just laughable. Sorry. I had a hard time reading your post after that statement.

I can write a sad song, happy song or whatever I'm feeling at the time. I can write a song with emotion, I can't play a song with emotion. Sorry, should've explained that in my previous post.

You're right I can't dispute the history but all those reasons you listed, while valid, will have different values from person to person. Whether the music was black, white, easy, hard, not mass marketed etc doesn't really do much for me because at the end of the day, the song will still sound the same. I understand appreciating music more based on where it comes from, but that's not the way I look at it. I listen to a song and either I like it or I don't. Of course, whether or not the songs are good because of where they come from is another topic entirely. That being, if the artist, be it Hendrix or whoever was a sucess because his history gave him alot to write about or feelings to express. That is debatable. But if you take a song, listen to it, then find out the history behind it, and listen to it again, it'll sound the same. Same notes, same tempo, same chords, same vocals, same everything The song hasn't changed but your perceptions of it have.

The innovative thing, what did Hendrix do that no one else had done before?*

*Not being argumentive, just want to know.
Then I guess you can't show passion, or love, or any emotion. What you feel can be put into anything. To say you can't put emotion into music is just laughable. Sorry. I had a hard time reading your post after that statement.

I can write a sad song, happy song or whatever I'm feeling at the time. I can write a song with emotion, I can't play a song with emotion. Sorry, should've explained that in my previous post.

Innovation isn't a value-judgement. It's historical fact. You can actually look at what has been recorded, how it was recorded, and what was and wasn't accepted in a society at a given time and assess an artist as innovative based on that. Innovation isn't ahistorical. It can't be ahistorical, since there is a temporal component implicit in the very definition of innovation. To innovate means to break with the past and to do something new - you can't divorce the concept of innovation from its temporality without 'innovation' becoming conceptually moribund. It's semantically impossible to talk about innovation in an ahistorical context, which is how you seem to want to evaluate it.

It doesn't matter whether you like the history of it. What matters is that history happened. And a perfunctory look at it indicates that Hendrix did indeed innovate. If you want examples, how about the backwards guitar, the use of the whammy bar, the word-painting cited by Wes earlier (which, although a prominent feature of much classical music, e.g. Handel's Messiah, is actually either noticeably absent or pretty blandly executed in much 'pop' music prior to Hendrix's recordings), the sociological prominence of a black man playing in a genre that is often considered 'white'*, his decisions in the arrangements (e.g. his suggestion to use harpsichord to accent the wah-guitar riff that opens Burning Of The Midnight Lamp), the very 'spaced out' EXP intro to Axis:Bold As Love, the complex rhythm playing (I've not heard much before or since which compares to Hendrix's rhythm playing in the studio or live), the masterful combination of complex guitar parts within a 3 minute pop song structure (yup, pretty much every tune on Axis, with 6 Was 9 being the exception, runs under 3 minutes or thereabouts), the controlled use of feedback and pedals (others do predate Hendrix, but even those who predate him say he took it to a whole new level).......

Strictly speaking, what a 'song' is is a moot point. Copyright lawyers love to try to pin it down and, for matters of survival, musicians have to agree to some extent with the lawyers. But philosophically......there's a whole can of worms there. There's a very good case to be said for the 'song' being multi-faceted. Aesthetic philosophy has long considered the notion that, for the artist, the 'art' is in the creation, it is the act of creation. But, for the viewer/experiencer of the art, it is the experience of it. If you hear a song once, then find out about its history and relisten to it, by that argument, you are 'hearing' a different piece of 'art' than you heard previously. Many would argue that art is more than merely the sum of its parts, in this case, the notes. Most artists would be included in that category. Which brings to ask the question so obviously begged before.........

if music is just a bunch of notes to you, and there's no emotion in any of it, why do you play guitar?

I don't mean that to be facetious. Its just that you have ardently argued that music has no emotion in it, and is just a bunch of notes played in a certain pattern. In which case, there has to be some explanation for why you spend time playing music rather than e.g. doing sudoko or playing chess or counting the red cars on a road at a random point in the day. Or an explanation as to why you play guitar instead of the glockenspiel.

Seriously, you can't divorce a song from your perception of it. Not in any informative or substantial way, anyway. There's a rule in physics (much disputed) which states that once something has been observed it has been changed. While it is disputed in physics, in music (as opposed to the science of sound), it still has some currency.

I would also ask you to clarify the distinction between writing a song with emotion and playing a song with emotion. Mozart seemed to feel differently. He wrote a text on violin playing, which I've not read recently enough as to be able to quote word for word, but in which he encourages the performer to seek out a thorough understanding of all the characteristics of a piece, including the emotion conveyed by it. The one bit I can quote is Mozart saying "all must be played so that the player himself be moved thereby." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like 'playing with emotion' to me.

I've got nothing against anyone who holds a different opinion to me. As I said when I first posted, I listened to Yngwie and it didn't do it for me, but I respect Metallica Mans enjoyment of it, and I'm glad he posted it. It's been a long time since I last heard Malmsteem and I try to keep an open mind about things. But your posts go beyond merely stating something as your opinion, you've given supposedly objective reasons in support of your opinions, but I just don't think the logic you've displayed in support of your opinions holds any weight.

* I really don't want to get into a black/white genre thing here, or a blues/not-blues one for that matter, but sociologically speaking, there has been a long held distinction between blues (black) and rock (white) - the distinction is often referred to when illustrating how prejudices/bias/perception can cloud aural facts (i.e. there's often a lot of overlap, but the classifications served more to indicate okay/not-okay). Within that context, it is fair to say Hendrix was one of a few 'crossovers' (Chuck Berry and Little Richard being the other two notables by that period).

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the music as a whole, not just the innovation. Innovation just means something new or different, not an improvement.
Strictly speaking, what a 'song' is is a moot point. Copyright lawyers love to try to pin it down and, for matters of survival, musicians have to agree to some extent with the lawyers. But philosophically......there's a whole can of worms there. There's a very good case to be said for the 'song' being multi-faceted. Aesthetic philosophy has long considered the notion that, for the artist, the 'art' is in the creation, it is the act of creation. But, for the viewer/experiencer of the art, it is the experience of it. If you hear a song once, then find out about its history and relisten to it, by that argument, you are 'hearing' a different piece of 'art' than you heard previously. Many would argue that art is more than merely the sum of its parts, in this case, the notes. Most artists would be included in that category.

I agree completely. But subjectively is the reaction to the act, which is what you are described, the object, which is the song, has not changed. Which brings me back to the point of...........no idea, so off topic I'm completely lost.
if music is just a bunch of notes to you, and there's no emotion in any of it, why do you play guitar?

To express emotion. I just don't believe in playing with emotion. Happiness, sadness, envy, rage are chemicals in the brain, they cannot strum a string. I don't need to be feeling the emotion the song is trying to convey while I'm playing it to get the emotion across. I once wrote a song about losing someone close to me, everyone felt sad hearing it. I didn't feel sad at all and no I'm not a sadist or anything. It's just that the person that died is fictional. It just sounded cool in my head, so I decided to write more lyrics and put a tune to it. I also remember getting really mad at an individual, wrote a song about how I wanted them to die. Needless to say, I was mad when I wrote it, by the time I had managed to write the riffs for it, it had been a couple years, hadn't talk to this person since and the anger wasn't there anymore. Song still sounded angry though. If I actually saw a musician try to play an upbeat song but can't get the feeling across because they are having a bad day, that wouldn't be playing with feeling to me, it would just be a bad performance.

I concede your point about Hendrix being an innovator though. I wanted to know why everyone gravitates towards him when there are other innovators out there and your answers make sense. I apologize, I did kind of state my opinion as fact which isn't fair. I hope no one got the impression I had a problem with other people liking his music. People like what they like. I just wanted to know why he was so important in terms of being a guitarist.
I've got nothing against anyone who holds a different opinion to me.

I never got the impression you did. I work at a call center overnight, so in an 8 hour shift the calls I take are usually within the single digits. I read a lot of philosophy, sociology and psychology books when I'm not busy. (Starting with 'The Prince' which my friend dropped off at my house.) I respect your opinion, the only reason I'm still discussing it is because I enjoy the subject.

I'm curious, what do you think of Hendrix's song Angel?

That's another one I should have mentioned in the "Oh yes!" list. I was a big fan of Rod Stewart from about the time of Maggie May to about 75 or so - Rod did a cover of Angel. It was a double-A side over here, with "What Made Milwaukee Famous" and of course, it was a big hit and got lots of airplay. I didn't hear the Hendrix version until after Rod's - someone lent me the album (Cry Of Love?) Angel was on. Loved it first time I heard it, blew Rod's version away. But there was very little else on that album that made any impact on me.

I don't know what it is about Hendrix that everyone (well, nearly everyone!) else sees that I don't....maybe he's just too far over my head? I'd love to be able to say I enjoy his music, but while I can appreciate his talent, his creativity, etc I just don't enjoy a lot of his music. Strange, but true.

To make a comparison - Picasso was a genius, yes? Generally excepted. But I'd far rather see a Constable landscape.....easy on the eye. Hendrix isn't always easy on the ear!

:D :D :D

Vic

I'm curious, what do you think of Hendrix's song Angel?

That's another one I should have mentioned in the "Oh yes!" list. I was a big fan of Rod Stewart from about the time of Maggie May to about 75 or so - Rod did a cover of Angel. It was a double-A side over here, with "What Made Milwaukee Famous" and of course, it was a big hit and got lots of airplay. I didn't hear the Hendrix version until after Rod's - someone lent me the album (Cry Of Love?) Angel was on. Loved it first time I heard it, blew Rod's version away. But there was very little else on that album that made any impact on me.

I don't know what it is about Hendrix that everyone (well, nearly everyone!) else sees that I don't....maybe he's just too far over my head? I'd love to be able to say I enjoy his music, but while I can appreciate his talent, his creativity, etc I just don't enjoy a lot of his music. Strange, but true.

To make a comparison - Picasso was a genius, yes? Generally excepted. But I'd far rather see a Constable landscape.....easy on the eye. Hendrix isn't always easy on the ear!

:D :D :D

Vic
Interesting...I think there is a lot more Hendrix out there that you'd appreciate, Vic. ;) It's not always on the studio albums though. Understood how you haven't went out searching for it though. PM me if you have any interesting in hearing some Angel/Little Wing/Watchtower sounding tracks. ;)

I understand where you are coming from by the way. It's sort of (but to a lesser extent) like myself with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are probably the most popular band out there right now, but I think they're pretty bad overall...outside of the bass and guitar.

Interesting...I think there is a lot more shred out there that you'd appreciate, Vic. ;)

Fixed that for you.

:lol:

well, just to add to my post count :lol: (kidding) and cause I always have an opinion

#1 - I kind of like shredders in general
#2 - But I really dont listen to it much
#3 - I like Steve Vai alot... is he a shredder?

Jim

I understand where you are coming from by the way. It's sort of (but to a lesser extent) like myself with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. They are probably the most popular band out there right now, but I think they're pretty bad overall...outside of the bass and guitar.

Funny you should mention the RHCP - they're another band I've never bothered with an awful lot. Some songs of theirs (I LOVE Under The Bridge!) I like, others I hate. Seems to be no middle ground.

I find that with a lot of bands, though - I hear a track on the radio I like, and rush out and buy the album, only to be disappointed with most of it. Well I used to - I'm more careful with money these days.

Examples - Metallica. I like Sandman and a few others - couldn't sit through a whole album. Whitesnake - I liked stuff like Still Of The Night and Here I Go Again, but again, I wouldn't buy an album. Van Halen - I bought the album 1984 because I liked "Jump" - but there's not much else on there that appeals to me. SRV - another guy I just don't get.

It's not that I'm musically intractable, or set in my ways, either. Sure, I listen to a lot of bands over and over again - but there are bands and artists I've "discovered" through recommendations by GN people. Johnny Cash is a prime example - never really heard much by him, apart from the MOR stuff like "Boy Named Sue" "One Piece At A Time" and "Thing Called Love."I think it was hearing "When The Man Comes Around" that turned me on to JC - then hearing Folsom Prison Blues. Then I'd see other songs mentioned, like there was a lesson on "Hurt" and someone mentioned "Sunday Morning Coming Down." Now I've got a few JC CD's.....

Others include Bonnie Raitt, Delbert McClinton, Willie Nelson (I listened to VERY little country pre-GN......) and a lot of blues musicians.....didn't know much about the blues, either. Still don't know an awful lot, but I find something new every day....

End of the day, we're all wired differently - we all like different things. I like mostly classic rock music - but I'm more into blues these days, and I still love the music I grew up with - The Beatles, The Who, The Stones, The Kinks, The Hollies, Motown etc etc etc.....if I never heard another new record, I'd still have more than enough music to listen to for the rest of my life - and still keep finding something new in it!

:D :D :D

Vic

I must say, though I like Yngwie, I don't see anything special about the lick lol. I think a)there's much better moments in that vid (adagio and the counterpoint piece) and b) Theres looooads of better vids of Yngwie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvxPui7s4so - for purrrty sounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QsMrpbN2eo - for me the first few minutes are a near perfect example of neo-classical playing! His performace of FBTS isn't so great here I don't think...He screws around too much without playing the song :?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rprykNfRQ - Not his best example, but he is a disgracefully overlooked rhythm guitarist. A truly great metal rhythm player,

PS: Yes Astro Man by Jimi kicks absolute ass! Love the twin guitar noodling before the verse :D :lol: 8)

Oh, and tell me this shredder didn't have soul, feeling n passion! :shock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iEHvbfQvw4

ok. Dont mean to be rude, but yeah, after the first long reply, I just kinda started skipping over the 5 pages of replys lol.

Sorry guys, after I realized that every reply is pretty much the same thing, I just kinda ignored it all.

So let me correct myself.
It was not the sickest possible guitar riff ever. I do apologize, it was not.

In my opinion note boat, I for some reason in this wild mind of mine, for some reason thought that few seconds of that vid were pretty cool.

Did not, in any way possible mean to start a 4 page 60 reply argument.

Sorry everyone

ok. Dont mean to be rude, but yeah, after the first long reply, I just kinda started skipping over the 5 pages of replys lol.

Sorry guys, after I realized that every reply is pretty much the same thing, I just kinda ignored it all.

So let me correct myself.
It was not the sickest possible guitar riff ever. I do apologize, it was not.

In my opinion note boat, I for some reason in this wild mind of mine, for some reason thought that few seconds of that vid were pretty cool.

Did not, in any way possible mean to start a 4 page 60 reply argument.

Sorry everyone

I wouldn't worry about it. You saw a piece you liked and decided to share it. Everyone does it, no harm in that.