LightOfArt said:

I don't care for what I've heard from Hendrix, but Janis is one of my all time favourite singers...I try to avoid her sometimes though, coz she pulls my heart strings

[img:$uid]http://www.angelicmusic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/janis-joplin.jpg[/img:$uid]

What about Janis yanks your chain?

prodigalfan said:

LightOfArt said:

I don't care for what I've heard from Hendrix, but Janis is one of my all time favourite singers...I try to avoid her sometimes though, coz she pulls my heart strings

[img:$uid]http://www.angelicmusic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/janis-joplin.jpg[/img:$uid]

What about Janis yanks your chain?

I believe he likes thinking about Janis while yanking his chain.

Zing!

prodigalfan said:

There is an element of my original question that some are just skipping over. That is are these people considered heroes because they died at their heydey and not because they are all that.

Again, my comments are about Jimi Hendrix only.
It's not a discussion point for me because this never comes up in any credible books or articles i've read.

The only time the question of his death would surface, is to wonder what music he would have created had he lived.

I didn't mention it because I believe his body of work, as short as it is, stands up over time.

He's an artist whose work continues to be appreciated and respected by other credible musicians, and not just Rock musicians.

Jimi Hendrix continues to be discussed because he was an artist that didn't just participate, he altered the game.


Personally, my appreciation for him went beyond the music because of the time period I grew up in.
"The first time I heard him was during one of those late night transistor radio listening sessions.
While tuned in to Murray The K (a pioneer during the "free-form" FM radio days), he played Hey Joe. Hearing this incredible music was one thing but when I finally saw what he looked like, I experienced what can only be described as a mental emancipation. It was if a great weight had been lifted. I was no longer restricted to the box (by White & Black people) of how Black people were categorized. What type of music you were expected to listen to or play, how you were supposed to talk, how you were supposed to dress or how you were supposed to think."
prince.org/msg/8/284764


If you're interested in more of my take on Jimi Hendrix and his music:
http://prince.org/msg/8/323946


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

prodigalfan said:

There is an element of my original question that some are just skipping over. That is are these people considered heroes because they died at their heydey and not because they are all that.

Again, my comments are about Jimi Hendrix only.
It's not a discussion point for me because this never comes up in any credible books or articles i've read.

The only time the question of his death would surface, is to wonder what music he would have created had he lived.

I didn't mention it because I believe his body of work, as short as it is, stands up over time.

He's an artist whose work continues to be appreciated and respected by other credible musicians, and not just Rock musicians.

Jimi Hendrix continues to be discussed because he was an artist that didn't just participate, he altered the game.


Personally, my appreciation for him went beyond the music because of the time period I grew up in.
"The first time I heard him was during one of those late night transistor radio listening sessions.
While tuned in to Murray The K (a pioneer during the "free-form" FM radio days), he played Hey Joe. Hearing this incredible music was one thing but when I finally saw what he looked like, I experienced what can only be described as a mental emancipation. It was if a great weight had been lifted. I was no longer restricted to the box (by White & Black people) of how Black people were categorized. What type of music you were expected to listen to or play, how you were supposed to talk, how you were supposed to dress or how you were supposed to think."
prince.org/msg/8/284764


If you're interested in more of my take on Jimi Hendrix and his music:
http://prince.org/msg/8/323946


Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

rialb said:

prodigalfan said:

What about Janis yanks your chain?

I believe he likes thinking about Janis while yanking his chain.

Zing!

haha maybe if she shaved her head and grew a bit of facial hair

no I don't know what it is, I loved her music instantly when I discovered her. And when I heard her story I was just hooked, and she was so funny in interviews, for some reason.

She is just one of those singers that when she opens her mouth she regurgitates her pain

prodigalfan said:

Thanks for the links. And TA, you have brought up a great point. People are so into being "politically correct" and "colorblind" that they down play race as much as possible. I am sure the fact that Jimi Hendrix being a black guatarist (sp?) and being that innovative had to have an impact on not only other musicians of color; not having to exist in premade music cages (ie genre). But I would imagine it was an eye opener to the listener to not judge a book by its cover. You have presented a compelling argument on behalf of your muscial hero. You've convinced me that Hendrix is all of that. what about the others? I would love to hear others tell why the other musical heroes are worthy of all the adolation.

I think in general that the '60s are thought of as a golden era and many of the musicians from that time have been elevated to saintly status, especially the ones that died young. The vast majority of the ones that did not die young ended up making mediocre music and in many cases "tainted" the legacy of the great music that they created in their prime but those that died young will always be remembered as being at the peak of their musical abilities.

I've really enjoyed reading this entire thread and hopefully I can add a piece to the puzzle that makes sense of the question, "Are these artists really "all that" and how did they achieve their "god-like status?"

Broadly speaking I believe it boils down to two basic things- the revolutionary cultural climate of the times and the fact that there can only be one first time for any new experience and as such, firsts tend to carry more significance in one's estimation of its importance in their memory.

I have to agree with most of the posters here that Janis Joplin was probably not all that exceptional a singing talent but, and it's a big BUT (no pun intended), she was among the very first to bring an intense emotional expression to what was emerging as the popular music of the day- blues influenced rock.

Her reputation as an amazing singer was more a product of the fact that she was a de facto role model to millions of young adults that it was OK to (quoting a popular phrase of the times) "let it all hang out" than her technical vocal skills.

Kids loved Janis for who she gave them permission to be... and that counts for A LOT. Cultural icons become cultural icons because they bring an undeniable energy that transforms others. In fact, we wouldn't be talking about them on this thread 40 some years if it weren't so.

Earlier tA mentioned his epiphany about how Jimi not only blew him away as a virtuoso musician but literally transformed his reality with regard to dissolving the indoctrinated societal defintions of racial differences. He eloquently reports on what was his personal mental emancipation but understand, this same phenomena of awakening was taking place in kids all across America (and the UK and Europe).

Citing again the cultural context of the times, the hippie, flower power, peace and love character of the late 60's was born of the very intense civil rights efforts by Dr. King and others in the early and mid-60's and everything I just said for Janis as a cultural force for change goes for Jimi too. He was a black man who was playing in a caucasian dominated genre while Janis was a white woman singing in an African American idiom.

Many orgers, having grown up in a more racially integrated world may think, "So what" but I'm telling you this was a BIG DEAL back then. FIRSTS!

One of the other firsts and big deals of the time was the impact of psychedelic drugs on culture and music.

In fact, let's go with the title of the final song and album name on Jimi's first major release, Are You Experienced? as a reference point.

For those of us coming of age in the mid to late 60's the question was a kind of insider's code to mean, "Have you had your entire sense of reality turned inside out by psychedelics yet?"

To adventure into the world of LSD, Peyote, Magic Mushrooms etc. was an initiatory experience that chiefly defined the era. And that "first time" on a psychedelic drug completely "blew your mind" and you knew you would never be the same again.

Your first trip was the ultimate OH. MY. GOD. experience. There would be no putting this genie back in the bottle, no chance of unseeing what you surely saw about life.

Whatever you thought reality was before you "dropped" your sacremental substance was revealed over the course of just a few hours to be a pale substitute to the day glo world of infinite possibility that existed just beyond the phony cardboard and plastic beliefs we were taught as kids in the black and white tv world of the 50's.

Now you were "experienced!"

If you have ever seen the movie Pleasantville it does a great job of metaphorically representing what happened to us culturally in the 60's. The trailer pretty much lays it out:

And what's the correlate of this awakening musically speaking?

If you go back and chronologically listen to popular music from various eras beginning with the first commercial radio transmissions of the 1920's you can discern a gradual evolution in the styles played by big bands.

With the introducton and development of tube amplifiers the evloution sped up a notch because now you could better hear some of the softer voiced instruments alongside the drums, piano and horns.

This advance of course gave rise to the electric guitar as a lead instrument and the small rock and roll "combo" came into being.

This move from big band music to guitar based rock music was a pretty big jump to be sure and it reflected quite a bit of youth rebellion going on in the 50's and early 60's but I would venture to say that the next jump from that original style of Elvis-era rock to the psychedelic, blues rock sound of the mid-60's was by an order of magnitudes and not gradual at all.

We were turning on, tuning in and dropping out and the music of the time reflected the effects of "being experienced." The music took a quantum leap because the people making it were forever changed relatively speaking in the blink of an eye. Jimi would never have been the Jimi we know if someone didn't "turn him on."

I don't think you can separate or underestimate the the remarkably vast changes that late 60's era brought to the world (and as an aside, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak have privately admitted that if it weren't for LSD the personal computer would not exist today. All the original development team at Apple were "heads.")

So many great guitarists of today owe a debt of gratitude to Jimi for blazing a trail of unlimited possibility for what could be done with a guitar. Some retrospective articles that say Jimi was regularly listening to free jazz artists like Coltrane and Roland Kirk and Sun Ra and incorporating that wild compositional inspiration to the guitar.

The reason that "Hendix is God" was a popular remark of the day back then was because he was among the first (and certainly one of the most visible and flamboyant players) whose music transcended whatever had come before. It was so far beyond that it "blew your mind."

I've heard seasoned professional guitarists say that Jimi was not that technically accomplished or even very fast as compared to many of the famous shredders that would come along later but something about his music took you to another place.

And that's what good art does. It has an ineffable magic to it and the magic emanates from the artist's presence.

Jimi had the power to move people in a unique way (as did Janis) and THIS is the reason we are still talking about him today.

So, was he really "all that?"

I think it depends on where or perhaps more accurately stated "when" you are looking from. There have been so many incredibly good guitarists to come along in the 4 decades since Jimi passed that unless you've been locked up in a box somewhere you can't help but be at least strongly influenced by if not actually prejudiced in your ability to discern if he was that good or not.

Time can be a funny thing where it intersects with perception. You know what it feels like to see a brand new sleek looking car. It almost looks like it's going 60MPH when it's just sitting there.

My point is that the feeling of wow that you have looking at the 2011 Buick 4 door sedan above is the same feeling I had back in 1953 looking at the Buick 4 door sedan below.

The only thing that makes the lower picture look so clunky today is the passage of time and all the evolution of style preferences and technical developments that have occured in the interim. It's the same car that once made me go wow and I'm the same person that once felt it was so sleek.

The analogy here is that many of the Jimi is God references that prodigalfan is questioning were generated in and are left over from an era when Jimi indeed was the ultimate player... and perhaps not just the ultimate guitar player but the creator/inventer of something entirely new, the idea that you could use a guitar to transport people to entirely unknown interior landscapes of feeling and experience that changed the listener forever. (Of course all those little chemical helpers that were so abundantly available and cavalierly sampled back then didn't hurt either).

Jimi was a true original and he took the young people of the time to amazing technicolor places they wanted to go in their consciousness and in their bodies, places far beyond the boring crap their leftover Eisenhower era parents were trying to instill in them.

Jimi was a revolutionary icon, a force of nature on the guitar and on the stage and maybe I'm prejudiced in reverse because I was there when Jimi was the absolute cutting edge, the king mind blower, a shamanistic wayshower who inspired each person to find their own unique authentic expression of self.

Now THAT was really something!

There may have been better guitarists around but there was no one more magic. I can't recall the better guitarists after all these years but conversely speaking, I cannot forget Jimi Hendrix.

I guess the question prodigal fan is asking from the perspective of 40 years later is was the man legendary because of his playing or was he legendary because of the effects he caused in people and the legacy he left in the culture?

It's a good question and I for one am happy for the provocative musings it has brought about in me.

I only regret I did not go see Jimi in Chicago the one chance I had. I had just found out I was being shipped off to Vietnam and I was in a pretty bummed out mood so my friends went without me that night. I got to hear how killer it was the next day.

So yes prodigal, you can go onto youtube and review today what was totally new way back when and I do hope you find it enjoyable. It's the closest thing we have to a time machine for now and to whatever degree possible try to hear it with fresh ears in order to understand why so much that was written about Jimi back then may seem like only so much hyperbole today.

Going back to tA's point about the importance of seeing Jimi in addition to just hearing recordings in order to get the full affect of his persona may I suggest you begin with this excellent concept piece illustrating that archetypal question, Are you experienced?:

[Edited 7/31/11 21:11pm]

rialb said:

prodigalfan said:

Thanks for the links. And TA, you have brought up a great point. People are so into being "politically correct" and "colorblind" that they down play race as much as possible. I am sure the fact that Jimi Hendrix being a black guatarist (sp?) and being that innovative had to have an impact on not only other musicians of color; not having to exist in premade music cages (ie genre). But I would imagine it was an eye opener to the listener to not judge a book by its cover. You have presented a compelling argument on behalf of your muscial hero. You've convinced me that Hendrix is all of that. what about the others? I would love to hear others tell why the other musical heroes are worthy of all the adolation.

I think in general that the '60s are thought of as a golden era and many of the musicians from that time have been elevated to saintly status, especially the ones that died young. The vast majority of the ones that did not die young ended up making mediocre music and in many cases "tainted" the legacy of the great music that they created in their prime but those that died young will always be remembered as being at the peak of their musical abilities.

Yep. That's why Jimi, Janis and Jim were revered so much. Had they continued, I don't know about Jimi, but I don't know if the rest of them could've carried on. Jim Morrison almost wanted to retire to be a poet because he was tired of the rock and roll lifestyle. Janis would've married and quit or just done soul music of some sort but who knows, maybe her death was determined at birth.

Also I definitely WOULD call it a generational gap. People born in the years Hendrix, Joplin, Lennon and Morrison came to existence either were too young to recall it (*coughvainandyPDogzcough*) or were so much brought up in the more freeing '70s and '80s that to them the artists of the '60s left a lot to be desired considering what many of the orgers here GREW UP on!

Great thread....... I'm learning so much and enjoyed reading the posts from the fans and the few that are from that time.

rialb said:

prodigalfan said:

Thanks for the links. And TA, you have brought up a great point. People are so into being "politically correct" and "colorblind" that they down play race as much as possible. I am sure the fact that Jimi Hendrix being a black guatarist (sp?) and being that innovative had to have an impact on not only other musicians of color; not having to exist in premade music cages (ie genre). But I would imagine it was an eye opener to the listener to not judge a book by its cover. You have presented a compelling argument on behalf of your muscial hero. You've convinced me that Hendrix is all of that. what about the others? I would love to hear others tell why the other musical heroes are worthy of all the adolation.

I think in general that the '60s are thought of as a golden era and many of the musicians from that time have been elevated to saintly status, especially the ones that died young. The vast majority of the ones that did not die young ended up making mediocre music and in many cases "tainted" the legacy of the great music that they created in their prime but those that died young will always be remembered as being at the peak of their musical abilities.

I have thought this very thing.... being it was the '60s and people died young. But I wasn't sure... so hence the reason for this thread.

I must admit I have learned quite a bit about Hendrix that makes me think he well deserve the accolates. Now I am curious about the others. It is good to hear people actually be open that these musicians are very good... but not beyond approach. I'm just thinking there are some equally talented people making music today who just happened to not become caught up in the drug scene and die prematurely.

DakutiusMaximus said:

I've really enjoyed reading this entire thread and hopefully I can add a piece to the puzzle that makes sense of the question, "Are these artists really "all that" and how did they achieve their "god-like status?"

Broadly speaking I believe it boils down to two basic things- the revolutionary cultural climate of the times and the fact that there can only be one first time for any new experience and as such, firsts tend to carry more significance in one's estimation of its importance in their memory.

I have to agree with most of the posters here that Janis Joplin was probably not all that exceptional a singing talent but, and it's a big BUT (no pun intended), she was among the very first to bring an intense emotional expression to what was emerging as the popular music of the day- blues influenced rock.

Her reputation as an amazing singer was more a product of the fact that she was a de facto role model to millions of young adults that it was OK to (quoting a popular phrase of the times) "let it all hang out" than her technical vocal skills.

Kids loved Janis for who she gave them permission to be... and that counts for A LOT. Cultural icons become cultural icons because they bring an undeniable energy that transforms others. In fact, we wouldn't be talking about them on this thread 40 some years if it weren't so.

Earlier tA mentioned his epiphany about how Jimi not only blew him away as a virtuoso musician but literally transformed his reality with regard to dissolving the indoctrinated societal defintions of racial differences. He eloquently reports on what was his personal mental emancipation but understand, this same phenomena of awakening was taking place in kids all across America (and the UK and Europe).

Citing again the cultural context of the times, the hippie, flower power, peace and love character of the late 60's was born of the very intense civil rights efforts by Dr. King and others in the early and mid-60's and everything I just said for Janis as a cultural force for change goes for Jimi too. He was a black man who was playing in a caucasian dominated genre while Janis was a white woman singing in an African American idiom.

Many orgers, having grown up in a more racially integrated world may think, "So what" but I'm telling you this was a BIG DEAL back then. FIRSTS!

One of the other firsts and big deals of the time was the impact of psychedelic drugs on culture and music.

In fact, let's go with the title of the final song and album name on Jimi's first major release, Are You Experienced? as a reference point.

For those of us coming of age in the mid to late 60's the question was a kind of insider's code to mean, "Have you had your entire sense of reality turned inside out by psychedelics yet?"

To adventure into the world of LSD, Peyote, Magic Mushrooms etc. was an initiatory experience that chiefly defined the era. And that "first time" on a psychedelic drug completely "blew your mind" and you knew you would never be the same again.

Your first trip was the ultimate OH. MY. GOD. experience. There would be no putting this genie back in the bottle, no chance of unseeing what you surely saw about life.

Whatever you thought reality was before you "dropped" your sacremental substance was revealed over the course of just a few hours to be a pale substitute to the day glo world of infinite possibility that existed just beyond the phony cardboard and plastic beliefs we were taught as kids in the black and white tv world of the 50's.

Now you were "experienced!"

If you have ever seen the movie Pleasantville it does a great job of metaphorically representing what happened to us culturally in the 60's. The trailer pretty much lays it out:

And what's the correlate of this awakening musically speaking?

If you go back and chronologically listen to popular music from various eras beginning with the first commercial radio transmissions of the 1920's you can discern a gradual evolution in the styles played by big bands.

With the introducton and development of tube amplifiers the evloution sped up a notch because now you could better hear some of the softer voiced instruments alongside the drums, piano and horns.

This advance of course gave rise to the electric guitar as a lead instrument and the small rock and roll "combo" came into being.

This move from big band music to guitar based rock music was a pretty big jump to be sure and it reflected quite a bit of youth rebellion going on in the 50's and early 60's but I would venture to say that the next jump from that original style of Elvis-era rock to the psychedelic, blues rock sound of the mid-60's was by an order of magnitudes and not gradual at all.

We were turning on, tuning in and dropping out and the music of the time reflected the effects of "being experienced." The music took a quantum leap because the people making it were forever changed relatively speaking in the blink of an eye. Jimi would never have been the Jimi we know if someone didn't "turn him on."

I don't think you can separate or underestimate the the remarkably vast changes that late 60's era brought to the world (and as an aside, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak have privately admitted that if it weren't for LSD the personal computer would not exist today. All the original development team at Apple were "heads.")

So many great guitarists of today owe a debt of gratitude to Jimi for blazing a trail of unlimited possibility for what could be done with a guitar. Some retrospective articles that say Jimi was regularly listening to free jazz artists like Coltrane and Roland Kirk and Sun Ra and incorporating that wild compositional inspiration to the guitar.

The reason that "Hendix is God" was a popular remark of the day back then was because he was among the first (and certainly one of the most visible and flamboyant players) whose music transcended whatever had come before. It was so far beyond that it "blew your mind."

I've heard seasoned professional guitarists say that Jimi was not that technically accomplished or even very fast as compared to many of the famous shredders that would come along later but something about his music took you to another place.

And that's what good art does. It has an ineffable magic to it and the magic emanates from the artist's presence.

Jimi had the power to move people in a unique way (as did Janis) and THIS is the reason we are still talking about him today.

So, was he really "all that?"

I think it depends on where or perhaps more accurately stated "when" you are looking from. There have been so many incredibly good guitarists to come along in the 4 decades since Jimi passed that unless you've been locked up in a box somewhere you can't help but be at least strongly influenced by if not actually prejudiced in your ability to discern if he was that good or not.

Time can be a funny thing where it intersects with perception. You know what it feels like to see a brand new sleek looking car. It almost looks like it's going 60MPH when it's just sitting there.

My point is that the feeling of wow that you have looking at the 2011 Buick 4 door sedan above is the same feeling I had back in 1953 looking at the Buick 4 door sedan below.

The only thing that makes the lower picture look so clunky today is the passage of time and all the evolution of style preferences and technical developments that have occured in the interim. It's the same car that once made me go wow and I'm the same person that once felt it was so sleek.

The analogy here is that many of the Jimi is God references that prodigalfan is questioning were generated in and are left over from an era when Jimi indeed was the ultimate player... and perhaps not just the ultimate guitar player but the creator/inventer of something entirely new, the idea that you could use a guitar to transport people to entirely unknown interior landscapes of feeling and experience that changed ythe listener forever. (Of course all those little chemical helpers that were so abundantly available and cavalierly sampled back then didn't hurt either).

Jimi was a true original and he took the young people of the time to amazing technicolor places they wanted to go in their consciousness and in their bodies, places far beyond the boing crap their leftover Eisenhower era parents were trying to instill in them.

Jimi was a revolutionary icon, a force of nature on the guitar and on the stage and maybe I'm prejudiced in reverse because I was there when Jimi was the absolute cutting edge, the king mind blower, a shamanistic wayshower who inspired each person to find their own unique authentic expression of self.

Now THAT was really something!

There may have been better guitarists around but there was no one more magic. I can't recall the better guitarists after all these years but conversely speaking, I cannot forget Jimi Hendrix.

I guess the question prodigal fan is asking from the perspective of 40 years later is was the man legendary because of his playing or was he legendary because of the effects he caused in people and the legacy he left in the culture?

It's a good question and I for one am happy for the provocative musings it has brought about in me.

I only regret I did not go see Jimi in Chicago the one chance I had. I had just found out I was being shipped off to Vietnam and I was in a pretty bummed out mood so my friends went without me that night. I got to hear how killer it was the next day.

So yes prodigal, you can go onto youtube and review today what was totally new way back when and I do hope you find it enjoyable. It's the closest thing we have to a time machine for now and to whatever degree possible try to hear it with fresh ears in order to understand why so much that was written about Jimi back then may seem like only so much hyperbole today.

Going back to tA's point about the importance of seeing Jimi in addition to just hearing recordings in order to get the full affect of his persona may I suggest you begin with this excellent concept piece illustrating that archetypal question, Are you experienced?:

I just breezed thru your post, just to say

Thanks so much for this post. There is so much here, that I need to go back through it several times to really comtemplate and absorb all this information you have wrote here.

I am anal and a so it will take me some time to research it out, to answer some of my own musings and possibly come up with some new ones.

From your post, I can assume that you the 60s was your era, and I was eager to read your POV and respect your opinon. I was born in the late 60s so I had no cognitive thoughts of that era.

It is interesting to me to hear your POV of how these artists of the 60s were also cultural icons, and were a big part of the entire revolution of the youth.

Those were wild, crazy and beautiful times... the 60s. I have always wished I could have been an adult in the 60s when I was a teen in the 80s. It seems so much of our culture society today was conceived in the 60s.

Thanks for the link. I will watch and learn. Also thanks to TA.

I'm glad people are getting something out of this thread because it has been a question I have had for many years now.

prodigalfan said:

Thanks for the links. And TA, you have brought up a great point. People are so into being "politically correct" and "colorblind" that they down play race as much as possible. I am sure the fact that Jimi Hendrix being a black guatarist (sp?) and being that innovative had to have an impact on not only other musicians of color; not having to exist in premade music cages (ie genre). But I would imagine it was an eye opener to the listener to not judge a book by its cover. You have presented a compelling argument on behalf of your muscial hero. You've convinced me that Hendrix is all of that. what about the others? I would love to hear others tell why the other musical heroes are worthy of all the adolation.

I'm glad that you got something from my perspective.

The others I can't really speak to as I did not have the same emotional attachment.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

DakutiusMaximus said:

Broadly speaking I believe it boils down to two basic things- the revolutionary cultural climate of the times and the fact that there can only be one first time for any new experience and as such, firsts tend to carry more significance in one's estimation of its importance in their memory.

Citing again the cultural context of the times, the hippie, flower power, peace and love character of the late 60's was born of the very intense civil rights efforts by Dr. King and others in the early and mid-60's and everything I just said for Janis as a cultural force for change goes for Jimi too. He was a black man who was playing in a caucasian dominated genre while Janis was a white woman singing in an African American idiom.

Many orgers, having grown up in a more racially integrated world may think, "So what" but I'm telling you this was a BIG DEAL back then. FIRSTS!

Excellent post and some very important points above.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Timmy84 said:

Also I definitely WOULD call it a generational gap.

I would agree that a generational gap can color the opinion someone may have of the music from an era they did not grow up in.

Look, you see it here all the time.

There are those that seem to be almost resentful of the fact that The Beatles are referred to by many (critics and fans alike) as "the greatest Pop/Rock/Whatever group". I can understand it on a certain level because most want the music of their specific time period to be the most celebrated.

The thing about The Beatles is if you did not live through the music that came before/during/after them, it's easy to write them off as just another band. I get not liking the music but their historical impact is pretty well documented.

I think the 60s hold a special place because so much of the music, as DakutiusMaximus has very well stated, was so tied to the politics and social change of that day.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

Timmy84 said:

Also I definitely WOULD call it a generational gap.

I would agree that a generational gap can color the opinion someone may have of the music from an era they did not grow up in.

Look, you see it here all the time.

There are those that seem to be almost resentful of the fact that The Beatles are referred to by many (critics and fans alike) as "the greatest Pop/Rock/Whatever group". I can understand it on a certain level because most want the music of their specific time period to be the most celebrated.

The thing about The Beatles is if you did not live through the music that came before/during/after them, it's easy to write them off as just another band. I get not liking the music but their historical impact is pretty well documented.

I think the 60s hold a special place because so much of the music, as DakutiusMaximus has very well stated, was so tied to the politics and social change of that day.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I wholeheartedly agree with all that you just said.

Now this is exactly what I was talking about in saying "when" you look from strongly influences your perceptions of an artist from another era's relative greatness.

From the new Rolling Stone magazine... Bob Dylan's grandson, 15 year old rapper Pablo Dylan has just released a hip hop mixtape called 10 Minutes.

Pablo comments on his grampa, "I consider him to be the Jay-Z of his time."

Is it possible for kids today to really 'get' these classic artists to the same degree as the fans that have lived when they were at their peaks?

I know younger fans can appreciate, even love them, but--with all the later music that can color their perceptions--will the magic ever be there when they listen to them like how it is for someone that experienced it at the time it was happening?

sextonseven said:

Is it possible for kids today to really 'get' these classic artists to the same degree as the fans that have lived when they were at their peaks?

I know younger fans can appreciate, even love them, but--with all the later music that can color their perceptions--will the magic ever be there when they listen to them like how it is for someone that experienced it at the time it was happening?

Good point. I'd say no.

Which makes having certain discussions extremely difficult.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

I wouldn't say Lennon was a Musical "God."

If you think about it

He really couldn't sing that well.

Could barely play guitar or piano.

What did he have really?

An amazing lyricist and composer, thats about it

But he was branded with the give peace a chance movement

with his personality and his "humanitarian" feats what commenced was a perfect storm that created an Icon.

An Icon that perhaps even falsely represents who he truly was

But an Icon nonetheless

He was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things.

Sometimes that and that alone is enough.

HermesReborn said:

I wouldn't say Lennon was a Musical "God."

If you think about it

He really couldn't sing that well.

Could barely play guitar or piano.

What did he have really?

An amazing lyricist and composer, thats about it

But he was branded with the give peace a chance movement

with his personality and his "humanitarian" feats what commenced was a perfect storm that created an Icon.

An Icon that perhaps even falsely represents who he truly was

But an Icon nonetheless

He was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things.

Sometimes that and that alone is enough.

The only problem I had with the "humanitarian" John Lennon was when it had a negative impact on his music. For example, the Some Time in New York City album was arguably his weakest album (excluding the "experimental" albums like Two Virgins) due largely to the politics that he injected into it.

rialb said:

HermesReborn said:

I wouldn't say Lennon was a Musical "God."

If you think about it

He really couldn't sing that well.

Could barely play guitar or piano.

What did he have really?

An amazing lyricist and composer, thats about it

But he was branded with the give peace a chance movement

with his personality and his "humanitarian" feats what commenced was a perfect storm that created an Icon.

An Icon that perhaps even falsely represents who he truly was

But an Icon nonetheless

He was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things.

Sometimes that and that alone is enough.

The only problem I had with the "humanitarian" John Lennon was when it had a negative impact on his music. For example, the Some Time in New York City album was arguably his weakest album (excluding the "experimental" albums like Two Virgins) due largely to the politics that he injected into it.

I agree with you there to an extent.

But I think that album was bad, because of of Ono's involvment.

Yoko can't write or sing.

He gave her too much creative input.

Plastic Ono Band and Imagine all songs (except one) where written by John...

New York City... was bad because of her ...

When you go into Mind games, entering the lost weekend when he and ono split

the ratio tips back in johns favor

and you have a better album

I still say that lost weekend was because she fucked up the New York City album...

theAudience said:

sextonseven said:

Is it possible for kids today to really 'get' these classic artists to the same degree as the fans that have lived when they were at their peaks?

I know younger fans can appreciate, even love them, but--with all the later music that can color their perceptions--will the magic ever be there when they listen to them like how it is for someone that experienced it at the time it was happening?

Good point. I'd say no.

Which makes having certain discussions extremely difficult.

Music for adventurous listeners

tA

Tribal Records

Sucks for me.

But I do feel the same way about younger folks that got into Prince in the 90s or later. They will have no idea what it was like to be a teen in 1984 and seeing the Purple Rain trailers on TV for the first time.

sextonseven said:

Is it possible for kids today to really 'get' these classic artists to the same degree as the fans that have lived when they were at their peaks?

I know younger fans can appreciate, even love them, but--with all the later music that can color their perceptions--will the magic ever be there when they listen to them like how it is for someone that experienced it at the time it was happening?

I would have to say no as well. The correlation DMaximus made with the 2 Buick cars really crystallized things for me.

It answered one of my original questions.... how good a person's skill and talent really can't be judge in a vacuum.

You have to look at the big picture, the perception and relevance of the time and environment that that talent was cultivated and experienced.

Because of that, younger fans (like myself in relation to the 60s music) can't comprehend the greatness of a talent. And that greatness is more than just rhyming words, and music notes played expertly on an instrument.

HermesReborn said:

I wouldn't say Lennon was a Musical "God."

If you think about it

He really couldn't sing that well.

Could barely play guitar or piano.

What did he have really?

An amazing lyricist and composer, thats about it

But he was branded with the give peace a chance movement

with his personality and his "humanitarian" feats what commenced was a perfect storm that created an Icon.

An Icon that perhaps even falsely represents who he truly was

But an Icon nonetheless

He was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things.

Sometimes that and that alone is enough.

right

and I guess that is what frustrates me so. Because there are some modern day heroes of equal talent who are just blown off because they were born in a era where there was no war, or there are modern musical instruments and accessories, where the bell has already been rung.

People like Amy Winehouse, and Stevie Ray Vaughn are also great... they are simply not the first.

prodigalfan said:

HermesReborn said:

I wouldn't say Lennon was a Musical "God."

If you think about it

He really couldn't sing that well.

Could barely play guitar or piano.

What did he have really?

An amazing lyricist and composer, thats about it

But he was branded with the give peace a chance movement

with his personality and his "humanitarian" feats what commenced was a perfect storm that created an Icon.

An Icon that perhaps even falsely represents who he truly was

But an Icon nonetheless

He was at the right place, at the right time, saying the right things.

Sometimes that and that alone is enough.

right

and I guess that is what frustrates me so. Because there are some modern day heroes of equal talent who are just blown off because they were born in a era where there was no war, or there are modern musical instruments and accessories, where the bell has already been rung.

People like Amy Winehouse, and Stevie Ray Vaughn are also great... they are simply not the first.

Yeah but you gotta be able to pick and choose your battles wisely.

Amy only had one real album, where she got some major songwriting creds

that was Back to Black.

While her songwriting was witty at best, it didn't really possess the universal aesthetics as say John Lennon.

But John had more time to perfect his songwriting,

he frankly started out as a shit writer in the beatles and he grew and became masterful.

Amy's true genius was yet to be seen.

and for me personally, Frank and Back to Black where good, but she hadn't matured yet...

Rehab, still annoys the shit out of me to this day.

But I love tracks like Love is a Losing game and her version of Tears Dry On Their Own.

I think she a great talent.

but to call her a genius...

I don't know.

It remains to be seen.

She had potential.

Stevie Ray's genius is more apparent than Amy's

I'd say Mark Ronson is a genius faster than Amy Winehouse.

prodigalfan said:

Jimmy Hendrix and Janis Joplin are undeniably a musical heroes to many.

There are musical heroes of today. For instance Madonna and Michael Jackson are contemporary musical heroes. But there are many detractors. And we have healthy debates about their talent or lack of talent.

I'm curious... are there ANY people who think Jimmy Hendrix or Janis Joplin were average? If there are, do they risk life and limb to declare that?

It seems to me these 2 and others... like John Lennon have taken on god-like status. And to criticize or question their talent is equivalent to blasmephy.

And the next question is, if you think they were over rated, explain why?

Disclaimer: I am only casual listener of these musicians... so my question in no way gives an opinion on the subject.

I'm asking because I am thinking about youtubing my way through their catalogues to experience new music and I wonder if these 3 are worth the effort, or did they take on muscial god-like status because they died during their heyday.

I have wondered this for days since reading the Amy Winehouse thread where people were totally dismissing her "genius" status, and I just wondered, why no one ever challenges these aforementioned "musical genuis" status.

Janis Joplin's favorite singer was Tina Turner. And Tina Turner felt the same way. Mick Jagger freaked the f- out when Janis joined Tina and sang a song with her when they were opening act. All Jagger needed was Jimi showing up, and he had been there that night.

http://images2.fanpop.com...92-350.jpg

dalsh327 said:

prodigalfan said:

Jimmy Hendrix and Janis Joplin are undeniably a musical heroes to many.

There are musical heroes of today. For instance Madonna and Michael Jackson are contemporary musical heroes. But there are many detractors. And we have healthy debates about their talent or lack of talent.

I'm curious... are there ANY people who think Jimmy Hendrix or Janis Joplin were average? If there are, do they risk life and limb to declare that?

It seems to me these 2 and others... like John Lennon have taken on god-like status. And to criticize or question their talent is equivalent to blasmephy.

And the next question is, if you think they were over rated, explain why?

Disclaimer: I am only casual listener of these musicians... so my question in no way gives an opinion on the subject.

I'm asking because I am thinking about youtubing my way through their catalogues to experience new music and I wonder if these 3 are worth the effort, or did they take on muscial god-like status because they died during their heyday.

I have wondered this for days since reading the Amy Winehouse thread where people were totally dismissing her "genius" status, and I just wondered, why no one ever challenges these aforementioned "musical genuis" status.

Janis Joplin's favorite singer was Tina Turner. And Tina Turner felt the same way. Mick Jagger freaked the f- out when Janis joined Tina and sang a song with her when they were opening act. All Jagger needed was Jimi showing up, and he had been there that night.

http://images2.fanpop.com...92-350.jpg

wow, what an iconic moment there ^^

I assume this was when Tina was still with Ike. I would love to hear this performance.

prodigalfan said:

dalsh327 said:

Janis Joplin's favorite singer was Tina Turner. And Tina Turner felt the same way. Mick Jagger freaked the f- out when Janis joined Tina and sang a song with her when they were opening act. All Jagger needed was Jimi showing up, and he had been there that night.

http://images2.fanpop.com...92-350.jpg

wow, what an iconic moment there ^^

I assume this was when Tina was still with Ike. I would love to hear this performance.

Tina was definitely still with Ike at that time. Janis died in 1970 and Ike and Tina split in 1976.