 |
 |
Been working over the weekend... On Apr 22, 2006, at 5:56 PM, steven c wrote: > Nope...Jimi was, first, a competent blues guitarist (when he wanted > to be)...and a true innovator concerning what could be done with > an electric guitar and a full set of effects. Just rented Monterey Pop, and though I am no expert on Hendrix, it is very clear from the first two minutes of his appearance in that film (I chose to go to my high school hgraduation instead of that festival, so I was almost there!) that what he did was to find new creative expression purely though technique and extreme feedback from high power amlifiers - I don't know if he used any effects pedals (other than wa wa) from the film or anywhere else, but it was not external plugin effects at all, as I see it. My best friend's brother can expound for days on Jimi, but not I. > > As well, when someone effectively places a musician on a "pedestal > of sacredness" to the extent that they refuse to discuss anything > that might have been less-than-perfect about their performances, > my innate reaction is to disagree (unless my own experience has > proven otherwise)! I never claimed she was perfect in any way - in fact quite the opposite, her extreme flaws were part of her charm. Her one song from Monterey is an extremely crude, kinda "had to be there" type of moment, a;lmost embarrasing to watch on film... Your polarity responses are understandable (I hated the Beatles for the first six mntsh purely because everyone around me in high school were ga ga about them. Then came Revolver and I was hooked in a different way...) But the inflammatory way you expressed it is the source of the flaming responses you say you get... Peace, brother, it's all just music! <L>