Sickest Possible Guitar Riff Ever.

Hmmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTLJMSbEnn0
Here's some 1966 Beatles with some backwards tracks.... not all are backwards though.
(Lennon looks the coolest I've ever seen him in this vid (% )

As far as Satisfaction goes.... It's from 1965.
Don't know when exactly that the Fuzz Face came out.... the story I remember was that Keef woke up
with the riff in his head and wrote down the music for the song.
Then, couldn't quite get the sound he was looking for and proceeded to puncture the speaker of his amp with long metal pins,
leaving them in, which produced the signature FUZZ sound on that recording.

Ken

But, if memory serves me, Dave Davies did the same thing to get the sound for "You Really Got Me" in the summer of 1964. He also, again if the story's right, used a razor blade to slice the cone of the speaker.

Peace

(Having some probs here.... havn't been able to use 'smilies' today, now I can't quote....?)

Anyway - to David's quote:

I havn't heard that about Dave Davies before.... Interesting.

What I have heard was that the guitarist on that track (possibly just the solo) was Jimmy Page....?

Ken

But didn't that technique (speaker ripping) actually date back to guys like Dick Dale and Link Wray?

LOL, I thought we had established that Hendrix was indeed an innovator around 3-4 pages back.....

as for having to like an artist in order to be able to appreciate their signifiance - I'm sorry but that's total BS. I don't have to like Henry VIII in order to understand how his period as King differed from preceeding Kings. I don't have to like the bublegum pop of '60s motown in order to appreciate the brilliance of Berry Gordy as a producer. And I don't have to like Salvador Dali to recognise he pushed art to new places. Whether I like an artist or not has no influence over the state of affairs. To argue otherwise is plainly absurd.

Whether you like Hendrix or not, if you judge him by the music that was being made in his time and before his time, then I doubt anyone could honestly claim that he wasn't innovative.

That's been a Hatfield/McCoy-type argument for a long time. Jimmy Page was hired for that album and did some rhythm guitar work and ever since it's become one of those things. However, Page himself has said that he didn't play on that song. And Ray would often say of his younger brother something to the effect of he hasn't got much going for him but at least give him credit for what he did do. Siblings, you know!

Personally, I do think it was Dave on the solo as it seemed awfully sloppy to be Jimmy's. But who really knows?

While Link Ray certainly gets the nods for power chords (and, surprisingly, not the inventor of the bagpipe), I don't think that he came up with distortion, other than the naturally loudness of the typical amp of the time. But I certainly could be wrong about that. Funny thing about things like that is how it can occur to different people at 'round about the same time. Innovation is constantly happening and it's often a single person who gets credit even though many people were doing the same sort of thing. It's rare to get ideas in a vacuum.

Peace

On innovation ....

One does not have to be the inventor or the first to popularize a technique or effect to be considered innovative. Innovation can be a matter of synthesis -- that is combining known techniques in a new way. Innovation can also be found in the new application of an existing idea, technique or concept.

Examples of innovative synthesis: Using vibrato (whammy!) plus wah pedal to emulate the cry of a wildcat. Sampling.

Examples of innovative application: Use of Flamenco technique in punk. Processing a vocal through a tincans-and-waxed-string "telephone"

Lot's of room for innovation. And it's not always good or successful. Many good performers/players/musicians are unsung innovators. Like them or not, I would find it hard to believe Jimi, Jeff, Yngwie, Kirk and many others had not innovated in some way.

On emotion ...

We can feel emotional as we play, and try to imbue our music with some manifestation of that emotion (dynamics, speed, pitch changes, intervals of tension/resolution ...), but emotion itself only exists in the people either end of the music: The musician and the listener. But not in the music itself. The music is merely an informer, and not always a good one.

Emotion may inspire us to produce poetry, music, descriptive prose ... but how these artistic products induce emotion in others is not always predictable. Similarly, we have all learned to interpret signs we see in other persons as indicators of their states of mind and emotion. These signs might be something like the quaver of voice, tear, timbre of a constricted larynx, or facial color change. We learn how these observations most probably indicate emotion in another. And maybe if we are (or believe we are) of an empathic nature, we can call up a similar emotion in ourselves. Maybe. All depends on how the particular listener/observer is imprinted for recognizing emotional cues. We do not all "get it" in the same way ... and there are ambiguities. Blushing can indicate excitement or embarrassment. Rapid talking can inform of excitement or nervousness. In much the same way, music also ends up being a somewhat unreliable conveyor or emotional information. See where this is going? Some of us relate emotion to slow smooth pitch bends that we may even call "sorrowful." Others are all about the dynamics. bang, Bang, BANG! Wail away on a guitar, and they become excited; yet given a skillful, pppp bend and the end of a ff sequence of notes ... nothing. Then there's speed. Some find building speed to be exhilerating; to others, it's merely mechanical ....

taste ...

Everybody hates something that is popular, and loves something else that is unpopular. Hopefully, everyone can recognize this within his- or herself. And show at least little tolerance for the tastes of others. Personal example: For the most part, I find Metallica's music unispiring and trite and its lyrics somewhat lacking. Yet I like the quasi-campy Wang Chung. I can certainly believe others will like Metallica, and also understand why even others would detest Wang Chung. So what the heck. Enjoy what you can. Just don't keep trying to make me listen to your fave. And I won't tie you to a chair, ball gag you, then 'educate' you 72 hrs straight of Dance Hall Days.

LOL - Well, I may well be called a heretic, though I always thought of Page as an amazingly sloppy guitarist!

Although, I remember seeing the Kinks play that song live on an early MTV rotation (where some girl grabs the neck of the guitar during Dave's solo - LOL) and Dave does a pretty outstanding job, I must admit.

And, I completely agree with you Sara (and Wes)....
I wasn't around when Hendrix burst onto the scene; I did grow up listening to him in the early 70's because my dad
had EVERY available album of his at that time and was a huge fan.
I'd have to say, after 'learning' what the musical climate was before Hendrix.... That had to be absolutely mind blowing when he came around!

Sure, others had ventured into the same territory.... None had done it as good or went as far though.
Kinda like comparing the Mercury space project to the Apollo space project....
or even better: The first Mercury sub-orbital 15 minute flight of Alan Shepard to The Apollo 11 Moon Landing.

Ken

But you don't have to look too hard to find something Jimi truly pioneered - listen to Bold as Love. The second guitar solo is backwards, a technique known as "backmasking". Although others (like the Beatles) had run tape backwards before, as far as I know, this is the first instance of somebody reversing only one instrument - and given the recording technology of the time, that was not an intuitive thing to do. He clearly had a visual plan of what to do before anyone else.
The second Bold as Love solo wasn't backwards. It used a studio phaser, and that was probably the first usage of that effect. Hendrix used reverse guitar solos on Are You Experienced, Castles Made of Sand, If 6 Was 9, and May This Be Love.

Grunge, I love your cop-out answers. I already said fuzz/wah came BEFORE Hendrix. But Hendrix made it what it was. Palm-muting came before Hendrix...but Hendrix (to an extent) made it more popular, it wasn't his biggest influence, but an influence nonetheless. Kind of like how Pete Townshend made power chords more popular, though Link Wray came first. And with feedback, who used it like Hendrix before Hendrix? Nobody. And please answer my question...what Hendrix have you heard?

Clearly, everyone here, even the people who don't like Hendrix, admit he was influential. You're missing something.

But you don't have to look too hard to find something Jimi truly pioneered - listen to Bold as Love. The second guitar solo is backwards, a technique known as "backmasking". Although others (like the Beatles) had run tape backwards before, as far as I know, this is the first instance of somebody reversing only one instrument - and given the recording technology of the time, that was not an intuitive thing to do. He clearly had a visual plan of what to do before anyone else.
The second Bold as Love solo wasn't backwards. It used a studio phaser, and that was probably the first usage of that effect. Hendrix used reverse guitar solos on Are You Experienced, Castles Made of Sand, If 6 Was 9, and May This Be Love.

Grunge, I love your cop-out answers. I already said fuzz/wah came BEFORE Hendrix. But Hendrix made it what it was. Palm-muting came before Hendrix...but Hendrix (to an extent) made it more popular, it wasn't his biggest influence, but an influence nonetheless. Kind of like how Pete Townshend made power chords more popular, though Link Wray came first. And with feedback, who used it like Hendrix before Hendrix? Nobody. And please answer my question...what Hendrix have you heard?

Clearly, everyone here, even the people who don't like Hendrix, admit he was influential. You're missing something.

You claimed "And why the hell do we have so many darn companies making effects nowadays? Because of Jimi." Which is not correct, or at least I cannot find anything crediting Hendrix to that. You say he made those effects more popular. That is not innovation. It is not MY definition of innovation either. If you check webster's dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation it defines it as something new, so if Hendrix is just taking an idea someone else has already come up with and making it more popular, he's not the innovator.

This is all my feelings on it. Please do not post telling me I cannot discredit because of this, or say he's an innovator because of that. I am allowed to interpret Hendrix, music, the world and reality however I wish. The only consequence of me thinking this way is I miss out on Hendrix's 'magic' which I am more than willing to live with. It doesn't bother me that I'm missing out and it shouldn't bother anyone else.

You claimed "And why the hell do we have so many darn companies making effects nowadays? Because of Jimi." Which is not correct, or at least I cannot find anything crediting Hendrix to that. You say he made those effects more popular. That is not innovation. It is not MY definition of innovation either. If you check webster's dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation it defines it as something new, so if Hendrix is just taking an idea someone else has already come up with and making it more popular, he's not the innovator.

This is all my feelings on it. Please do not post telling me I cannot discredit because of this, or say he's an innovator because of that. I am allowed to interpret Hendrix, music, the world and reality however I wish. The only consequence of me thinking this way is I miss out on Hendrix's 'magic' which I am more than willing to live with. It doesn't bother me that I'm missing out and it shouldn't bother anyone else.
"You can't find anything crediting Hendrix"...wow. Okay. Formulate your own opinion. Listen to music pre-Hendrix. Now listen to music post-Hendrix. What effects do you hear? A lot more distortion, a lot more fuzz, a lot more wah, hell even Univibe.

And if you wanna look at innovation that way, I direct you to Hendrix's phasing sounds in the studio that he created, that he "innovated". Or how about the fact he wanted Roger Mayer to create him a leslie rotating speaker effect. Now if you call Roger Mayer the innovator of the univibe, you are a hypocrite, considering Hendrix thought of the idea.

Or what about the octavia pedal? Again, Hendrix told Roger Mayer he needed an octave up pedal...and same situation there.

I respect you don't like Hendrix, I've already said that. But I think Scrybe said it...that's completely absurd, you don't have to like an artist or person to admit they are great. Another example- I'm a Red Sox fan...and I absolutely hate the New York Yankees. But that doesn't mean Alex Rodriguez isn't possibly the greatest player of all time. I'm also Patriots fan, and absolutely hate the Colts, but does that mean Peyton Manning isn't one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time? No, because he is.

Just open up your eyes and come up with your own opinions. Listen to some songs other than Purple Haze and Foxy Lady, then get back. Peace.

Am I still at GuitarNoise? Hasnt been this much drama since we had the "opinions" board.. and not the one that is there now.. LOL

JIm

Am I still at GuitarNoise? Hasnt been this much drama since we had the "opinions" board.. and not the one that is there now.. LOL

JIm
Yea seriously. This topic started a lot of drama on different subjects.

Sometimes just a little drama is a good thing, lol.

GrungeSunset,

Finding the FIRST person to use this effect or that technique is not only pointless in a case like this, but impossible. To quote Carlos Santana, "It's like trying to find out who invented soup".

You're just playing semantics at this point. There were people using these effects and whatnot before Hendrix, but few if any had taken it anywhere close to the level Jimi took it. It was so beyond what others were doing it was scary. Nobody was using them in the way he was using them. Not even close. That in itself is an invention of something new which would fit Webster's definition of innovation if you want to play that. Lots of inventions or innovations aren't always brand new things, but improvements or new ways to use other things. I'd say Jimi did that.

Think about Apple computer. They didn't invent the computer, but when Apple came out, they took the computer to a place where it had never been before and changed everyone's idea of what was possible with them. Same idea.

1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty

This is like the definition of Jimi

Think about Apple computer. They didn't invent the computer, but when Apple came out, they took the computer to a place where it had never been before and changed everyone's idea of what was possible with them. Same idea.

Interesting example, and even more extreme than most people realize. Apple's great contribution to PC tech was successful commercialization of seminal GUI and MMI concepts, and delivering them to the wider population in affordable products. Most of the original ideas were snagged by Jobs directly from the commercially inept, but inventive Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). So Apple's innovation was not one of original invention, but commercialization. Probably much like many of our favorite musicians.

LOL - Well, I may well be called a heretic, though I always thought of Page as an amazingly sloppy guitarist!

Same here. But he produces great studio solos! 'Course now that he's clean, he may be better live.