In the July 2000 issue of "Uncut," a Brit-based mag on "Music, Movies & Books," the cover feature is on Jimi Hendrix, marking 30 years since his transition... One writer, Tom Wyndham, argues that Hendrix not only could not maintain the momentum of his artistry ("Had Hendrix not died when he did, the most likely prospect would have been further years of gradual decline"), but Wyndham also suggests that those who have attempted to follow Hendrix's tradition have failed... a category he includes Prince in:



"Since then, things have hardly gotten much better, as evidenced by the pathetic pretenders to Hendrix's mantle that have emerged over the last decade and a half, be they Prince with his pompous 'Purple Rain' or--more laughable still--Lenny Kravitz with his leaden retro-rock riffing."



The writer goes on to say that Hendrix's "own musical vision was pretty much a worked out seam by the time of his passing. So while it was a tragedy that he should die at all, it's probably best that he died when he did."



This illustrates a gross arrogance on the part of Wyndham, and a totally distorted focus on music over life! He would prefer Hendrix die to protect his artistic standing?!?! It kinda puts into a new perspective some of the "Prince is in decline" rhetoric of current critics.