SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

I don't know what music histories you've been reading because all the ones I have read (and it's been a lot) always give praise and props to the Founding Fathers of rock. In fact, I learned about many of these artists from reading about them in books and magazines, and by hearing how they influenced many of the artists I love

If historians didn't "get it wrong" then why in the world is Elvis called the "King of Rock n' Roll"? Why are the accomplishments of non-European groups in the U.S. routinely dismissed or diminished in history classes in public schools across America?

Why would the most popular and biggest selling rock and roll act of the 50s not be called the king? Historians got it right with that title. They also got it right in calling Little Richard "The Architect of Rock and Roll".

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

Have you actually ever listened to Elvis ? Not look at him a symbol, but simply listen to his music ? He was one of the greatest singers who ever lived. Many Black artists praised him for helping to open doors for them. And his music incorporated numerous styles and influences- blues, gospel, country, pop, even opera....And because he was raised in an area where all these different styles were heard, he had a natural feel for these styles .

Read some books by Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Dave Marsh, and the late Robert Palmer. These are writers who give full credit to ALL the originators of the music

Elvis basically ripped of Dean Martin and Little Richard. Of COURSE I have heard his music but I just don't get it. Man, so many of you guys are QUICK to say, "Well XYZ black artist said this and that about (insert artist here)" but you DON'T talk about the other things that MANY black artists have complained about over the years. Oh well. This is the Org. I shouldn't expect that discussion to happen in any thread really.

But what does "ripped off" really mean ? Elvis was doing what he was doing when Little Richard was an unknown. If you saw that excellent documentary on James Brown on HBO, you would have heard that James worshipped Little Richard and started out (literally) imitating him, often playing concerts AS Little Richard. Now is Brown "ripping off" Little Richard ? Or is that OK ?

Believe me, I totally understand all that has gone on in society, and how it is refelcted in the music business. So I get your basic points. But as a music lover who has studied it's history, I know that the situations and influences are much more complex and varied than you probably see it ...for example, Chuck Berry was called a "Black Hillbilly" when he started, because of the pronounced Country influences in his work. Yet would you say he was "ripping off" Hank Williams or Ernest Tubb ? Or does he have the right to be influenced and perform what ever he loves and has an affinity for ?

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

Have you actually ever listened to Elvis ? Not look at him a symbol, but simply listen to his music ? He was one of the greatest singers who ever lived. Many Black artists praised him for helping to open doors for them. And his music incorporated numerous styles and influences- blues, gospel, country, pop, even opera....And because he was raised in an area where all these different styles were heard, he had a natural feel for these styles .

Read some books by Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Dave Marsh, and the late Robert Palmer. These are writers who give full credit to ALL the originators of the music

Elvis basically ripped of Dean Martin and Little Richard. Of COURSE I have heard his music but I just don't get it. Man, so many of you guys are QUICK to say, "Well XYZ black artist said this and that about (insert artist here)" but you DON'T talk about the other things that MANY black artists have complained about over the years. Oh well. This is the Org. I shouldn't expect that discussion to happen in any thread really.

BTW- Did you ever see "Hail Hail Rock and Roll", the documentary from the 1980s about Chuck Berry ? There is a lengthy sequence where Chuck, Little richard, and Bo Diddley are discussng the difficulties faced by Black artists in their day, and the difficulties gaining acceptance. So there is nobody here (certainly not me) denying that racism exists in scociety and the music business. But I am also not going to use that histiry to deny that other people may possess great talents either.

sexton said:

SeventeenDayze said:

If historians didn't "get it wrong" then why in the world is Elvis called the "King of Rock n' Roll"? Why are the accomplishments of non-European groups in the U.S. routinely dismissed or diminished in history classes in public schools across America?

Why would the most popular and biggest selling rock and roll act of the 50s not be called the king? Historians got it right with that title. They also got it right in calling Little Richard "The Architect of Rock and Roll".

It's funny how the question that I posed in that post above has been asked at least three times in this thread and no one has a response for it. By the way, Little Richard call himself the Architect of Rock n' Roll but most people associate rock music with Elvis....That's like suggesting that pizza is "American" food because it's popular here. Uh no, it's Italian food after all...

jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Elvis basically ripped of Dean Martin and Little Richard. Of COURSE I have heard his music but I just don't get it. Man, so many of you guys are QUICK to say, "Well XYZ black artist said this and that about (insert artist here)" but you DON'T talk about the other things that MANY black artists have complained about over the years. Oh well. This is the Org. I shouldn't expect that discussion to happen in any thread really.

But what does "ripped off" really mean ? Elvis was doing what he was doing when Little Richard was an unknown. If you saw that excellent documentary on James Brown on HBO, you would have heard that James worshipped Little Richard and started out (literally) imitating him, often playing concerts AS Little Richard. Now is Brown "ripping off" Little Richard ? Or is that OK ?

Believe me, I totally understand all that has gone on in society, and how it is refelcted in the music business. So I get your basic points. But as a music lover who has studied it's history, I know that the situations and influences are much more complex and varied than you probably see it ...for example, Chuck Berry was called a "Black Hillbilly" when he started, because of the pronounced Country influences in his work. Yet would you say he was "ripping off" Hank Williams or Ernest Tubb ? Or does he have the right to be influenced and perform what ever he loves and has an affinity for ?

I think most of us on the Org probably weren't born when these aforementioned artists were up and coming. It's hard for most of us to conceive of what the music industry was like before music videos and MTV (I don't remember a time without music videos). Now, because of social media, the internet, etc. it's hard to imagine a time when an artist would be on the chitlin circuit for years before becoming known across the nation. I think that is a key component of this discussion. We have to think about how long and hard artists worked before becoming famous. So, perhaps several people were doing the same thing at the same time but only certain acts were promoted over others.

SeventeenDayze said:

sexton said:

Why would the most popular and biggest selling rock and roll act of the 50s not be called the king? Historians got it right with that title. They also got it right in calling Little Richard "The Architect of Rock and Roll".

It's funny how the question that I posed in that post above has been asked at least three times in this thread and no one has a response for it. By the way, Little Richard call himself the Architect of Rock n' Roll but most people associate rock music with Elvis....That's like suggesting that pizza is "American" food because it's popular here. Uh no, it's Italian food after all...

I don't know why you find that funny. That's a bigger question than just music--which is what this thread is about. And concerning music, I believe people of color are properly acknowledged as creating the building blocks from which much of popular music is based.

But I will accept your non-answer to my question as acknowledgement that it's right that Elvis be called the king because his popularity and sales ruled over everyone else's at the time.

By the way, Little Richard has said he did not call himself the architect of rock and roll, but that is what other people called him.

SeventeenDayze said:

sexton said:

Why would the most popular and biggest selling rock and roll act of the 50s not be called the king? Historians got it right with that title. They also got it right in calling Little Richard "The Architect of Rock and Roll".

It's funny how the question that I posed in that post above has been asked at least three times in this thread and no one has a response for it. By the way, Little Richard call himself the Architect of Rock n' Roll but most people associate rock music with Elvis....That's like suggesting that pizza is "American" food because it's popular here. Uh no, it's Italian food after all...

We live in a racist society (though probably less racist than in the past). I grew up with race riots on the streets of New York. I see less of that in my teenage son's generation. So yes,the accomplishments of non-whites have been downplayed, for certain. However, that is not an excuse to do the reverse, either, and deny people's talents or tell them they shouldn't be doing certain styles of music because they're the "wrong" color or from the "wrong" background

jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

It's funny how the question that I posed in that post above has been asked at least three times in this thread and no one has a response for it. By the way, Little Richard call himself the Architect of Rock n' Roll but most people associate rock music with Elvis....That's like suggesting that pizza is "American" food because it's popular here. Uh no, it's Italian food after all...

We live in a racist society (though probably less racist than in the past). I grew up with race riots on the streets of New York. I see less of that in my teenage son's generation. So yes,the accomplishments of non-whites have been downplayed, for certain. However, that is not an excuse to do the reverse, either, and deny people's talents or tell them they shouldn't be doing certain styles of music because they're the "wrong" color or from the "wrong" background

EXACTLY!

if one really searches the history of the beatles, both john and paul are very upfront on their earlier influences in their music. they have repeatedly given tribute to black musicians of which they copied/borrowed certain bars and riffs. also they have let it be known that their earlier vocal styles were learned from constant listening of people like little richard and etc.

note:

jimi hendrix vocal style was heavily influenced by bob dylan. however i hear no on accusing him of being a "rip off" artist.

one of ike and tina turner's biggest hit "proud mary" was a cover that was originally done by creedence clearwater revival. were they "rip offs?"

Little Richard, who said in the introduction to Turner's autobiography, "Before all these people Ike Turner was doing his thing. He is the innovator." Richard was inspired to learn to play the piano by Rocket 88 and borrowed the introduction for his hit Good Golly Miss Molly. (was little richard ripping of Ike Turner?)

the answer in all the above is NO!

one should ask oneself, "am i disgruntled and unaccepting of the beatles because they are white, or is there a refusal on ones part to accept the fact that music is a vehicle for harmony between the races?

the beatles borrowed from little richard and others, they are the first to admit it and they along with other british musicians of the time brought black bluesmen and women to the forefront of american music listeners who were ignorant of the roots of black american music. also they enlivened the musical culture at the time.

onces again imo

yes the beatles really did impact music - in a myriad of ways.

imo one should go beyond ones personal feelings about the beatles and their history before labeling them as "rip offs."

free2bfreeda said:

one should ask oneself, "am i disgruntled and unaccepting of the beatles because they are white, or is there a refusal on ones part to accept the fact that music is a vehicle for harmony between the races?

Actaully there is only one question I ask myself about any artist:

"Do I like the MUSIC"? In the case of the Beatles........the answer is no.

SeventeenDayze said:

Okay, so the British Invasion was DECADES before my time but I have often wondered if the Beatles were a product of media hype/PR machine or did they have a bonafide impact on music. I'm not talking about whether or not they had scores of screaming, fainting fans (they did obviously) but did they have an impact on music? I see an artist like David Bowie who obviously had a huge impact on the direction of music in the 70s but I don't know if I'm convinced the Beatles had that much of an impact. I welcome the comments from those old enough to remember that era and/or music historians (Yes, that means YOU MickeyDolenz)

Without the BEATLES you have no Bowie, No Elton, No Nirvana, and a slew of others. I dont even count Beatlemania in this discussion THOUGH there has never been anything close to that and never will be again, people can say there have been crazes and mania since, everyone from Duran Duran to Nsync to Britney but those are not even in the ballpark of what they saw in terms of fans and media and things thrown at them, and also remember MEDIA in the 60's was nothing to compared to the 80's and 90's and now where everything is HYPED all over. When the Beatles stopped touring in 1965 to me that is where the influence begins, Rubber Soul and Revolver all through the last albums all were the birth of the artists and also people like BOWIE where heavily influenced by them because the BAR was so high, nowadays what BAR Is there?? Beyonce, give me a break. The work in the studio that they were doing was never done before, and I feel George Martin is a member just as much as the others for that because when they stopped touring, it became all about the studio work. SGT PEPPER though some dont like it, when that album came out you had Jimi Hendrix that NIGHT BEFORE The release already covering the opening track. So that is more than influence and impact, also the Beach Boys "Pet SOunds" never happens if that record isn't done, The Stones "Exile" never happens and Bowie and things he did, all of it never happens, remove them from Music history and you take a hell of a lot of legends out with them.

Little Richard has been a joke for 40 years.

free2bfreeda said:

imo one should go beyond ones personal feelings about the beatles and their history before labeling them as "rip offs."

I agree with this.There are several popular artists and bands that I don't "get",but I would never try to deny their influence and impact.Love them or hate them,the Beatles' impact on music is undeniable.

Graycap23 said:

free2bfreeda said:

one should ask oneself, "am i disgruntled and unaccepting of the beatles because they are white, or is there a refusal on ones part to accept the fact that music is a vehicle for harmony between the races?

Actaully there is only one question I ask myself about any artist:

"Do I like the MUSIC"? In the case of the Beatles........the answer is no.

That's your right....nobody is forcing you to love the Beatles, or any act for that matter

2freaky4church1 said:

Little Richard has been a joke for 40 years.

Excuse me?? You're ridiculous.

Did The Beatles Really Impact Music??'

Does a bear shit in the woods?!?! #FOH

SeventeenDayze said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Little Richard has been a joke for 40 years.

Excuse me?? You're ridiculous.

I wouldn't say he's a joke, more that he's become a caricuture of himself, and plays that role to the hilt

jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Excuse me?? You're ridiculous.

I wouldn't say he's a joke, more that he's become a caricuture of himself, and plays that role to the hilt

Um, in what way has he "become a caricature" of himself??? I mean, isn't he pushing 80 by now??? Come on...Just because he's older doesn't mean he's (at his core) fundamentally different than how he was as a loud and vivacious 20-something who pioneered the rock and roll sound. The fact that someone on this thread even referred to Little Richard as a "joke" but is bending over backwards to throw all this praise at the Beatles (who COVERED other artists to become popular) is indicative of exactly what's wrong with how history is repackaged to fit an agenda that propagates a particular narrative that ultimately diminishes the contributions of some while over-estimating (or in some cases flat out lying) about the contributions of others.

[Edited 3/8/16 15:44pm]

: http://prince.org/msg/8/422341

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

I wouldn't say he's a joke, more that he's become a caricuture of himself, and plays that role to the hilt

Um, in what way has he "become a caricature" of himself??? I mean, isn't he pushing 80 by now??? Come on...Just because he's older doesn't mean he's (at his core) fundamentally different than how he was as a loud and vivacious 20-something who pioneered the rock and roll sound. The fact that someone on this thread even referred to Little Richard as a "joke" but is bending over backwards to throw all this praise at the Beatles (who COVERED other artists to become popular) is indicative of exactly what's wrong with how history is repackaged to fit an agenda that propagates a particular narrative that ultimately diminishes the contributions of some while over-estimating (or in some cases flat out lying) about the contributions of others.

[Edited 3/8/16 15:44pm]

What I'm saying it that Little Richard these days is about selling his persona as the outrageous "King...and Queen of Rock"....not much different than Libreace. Which is fine, if that is his choice. It's not about the music anymore. Now compare him to his contemporary, Jerry Lee Lewis, who still puts out new music. Or compare him to people slightly younger, who are still serious about their music , and about creating- I'm talking about folks like Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mavis Staples, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard...hell, Loretta Lynn just put out a new album and she's 84 !! I love Richard's work, and understand his place in history, but if you look at it, he only had 2 or 3 years of peak creativity and hit making, from about 1956 to 1959. He has been coasting on those great hits ever since (And BTW- ALL artists start out covering other people on their way to finding their own sound- from Frank Sinatra to Otis Redding to the Rolling Stones to Prince....that's how music works)

jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Um, in what way has he "become a caricature" of himself??? I mean, isn't he pushing 80 by now??? Come on...Just because he's older doesn't mean he's (at his core) fundamentally different than how he was as a loud and vivacious 20-something who pioneered the rock and roll sound. The fact that someone on this thread even referred to Little Richard as a "joke" but is bending over backwards to throw all this praise at the Beatles (who COVERED other artists to become popular) is indicative of exactly what's wrong with how history is repackaged to fit an agenda that propagates a particular narrative that ultimately diminishes the contributions of some while over-estimating (or in some cases flat out lying) about the contributions of others.

[Edited 3/8/16 15:44pm]

What I'm saying it that Little Richard these days is about selling his persona as the outrageous "King...and Queen of Rock"....not much different than Libreace. Which is fine, if that is his choice. It's not about the music anymore. Now compare him to his contemporary, Jerry Lee Lewis, who still puts out new music. Or compare him to people slightly younger, who are still serious about their music , and about creating- I'm talking about folks like Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mavis Staples, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard...hell, Loretta Lynn just put out a new album and she's 84 !! I love Richard's work, and understand his place in history, but if you look at it, he only had 2 or 3 years of peak creativity and hit making, from about 1956 to 1959. He has been coasting on those great hits ever since (And BTW- ALL artists start out covering other people on their way to finding their own sound- from Frank Sinatra to Otis Redding to the Rolling Stones to Prince....that's how music works)

jjhunsecker said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Um, in what way has he "become a caricature" of himself??? I mean, isn't he pushing 80 by now??? Come on...Just because he's older doesn't mean he's (at his core) fundamentally different than how he was as a loud and vivacious 20-something who pioneered the rock and roll sound. The fact that someone on this thread even referred to Little Richard as a "joke" but is bending over backwards to throw all this praise at the Beatles (who COVERED other artists to become popular) is indicative of exactly what's wrong with how history is repackaged to fit an agenda that propagates a particular narrative that ultimately diminishes the contributions of some while over-estimating (or in some cases flat out lying) about the contributions of others.

[Edited 3/8/16 15:44pm]

What I'm saying it that Little Richard these days is about selling his persona as the outrageous "King...and Queen of Rock"....not much different than Libreace. Which is fine, if that is his choice. It's not about the music anymore. Now compare him to his contemporary, Jerry Lee Lewis, who still puts out new music. Or compare him to people slightly younger, who are still serious about their music , and about creating- I'm talking about folks like Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mavis Staples, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard...hell, Loretta Lynn just put out a new album and she's 84 !! I love Richard's work, and understand his place in history, but if you look at it, he only had 2 or 3 years of peak creativity and hit making, from about 1956 to 1959. He has been coasting on those great hits ever since (And BTW- ALL artists start out covering other people on their way to finding their own sound- from Frank Sinatra to Otis Redding to the Rolling Stones to Prince....that's how music works)

Wow, you're being really dismissive of Little Richard. The Beatles were only a group for what, 5 or 6 years, so what's the difference? It's amazing how you seem totally blind to the fact that you are validating the invalidation of black artists to prop up white artists by saying "Well all artists do XYZ"....well excuse me, who first recorded Purple Haze???

would there be a beatles WITHOUT little richard coming first?????

luvsexy4all said:

would there be a beatles WITHOUT little richard coming first?????

Exactly. But you have people in this thread trying to say "everyone" did covers. Excuse me but who performed "Tootie Fruity" first??? The deniala and dismissive attitude people have towards earlier artists before the Beatles is really telling....

I think that their impact is mostly in one area. I think their impact is mostly in superstardom and in terms of being the first "pop stars or teen idols" (for their era) they reached the highest peak and formed a blue print for other future pop stars in terms. superstardom....... but I would argue that there are others that have surpassed them even in that area, MJ automatically comes to mind. When it comes to just pop success for their period. However, they get credited a bit to much and are overrated in some ways when it comes to rock n roll musically. Its a shame that none of those black rockers (the real pioneers of rock n roll) never get their respect and proper recognition. I hardly if ever hear Little Richard's name ever mentioned when the birth of rock n roll is discussed. Its always either Beatles or Elvis, who took a lot from black artists.

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

What I'm saying it that Little Richard these days is about selling his persona as the outrageous "King...and Queen of Rock"....not much different than Libreace. Which is fine, if that is his choice. It's not about the music anymore. Now compare him to his contemporary, Jerry Lee Lewis, who still puts out new music. Or compare him to people slightly younger, who are still serious about their music , and about creating- I'm talking about folks like Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mavis Staples, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard...hell, Loretta Lynn just put out a new album and she's 84 !! I love Richard's work, and understand his place in history, but if you look at it, he only had 2 or 3 years of peak creativity and hit making, from about 1956 to 1959. He has been coasting on those great hits ever since (And BTW- ALL artists start out covering other people on their way to finding their own sound- from Frank Sinatra to Otis Redding to the Rolling Stones to Prince....that's how music works)

Wow, you're being really dismissive of Little Richard. The Beatles were only a group for what, 5 or 6 years, so what's the difference? It's amazing how you seem totally blind to the fact that you are validating the invalidation of black artists to prop up white artists by saying "Well all artists do XYZ"....well excuse me, who first recorded Purple Haze???

You completely misunderstood my point. I know you're young and admitted that you don't know much about music history, so I'll excuse you. How many times did I say that Richard was great ? He WAS limited, especially compared to his contemporaries like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis , Bo Diddley, and of course Elvis- all of whom did a broader range of material , and had longer careers as relevant recording artists than Richard. And you're right- The Beatles lasted a total of 8 years as recording artists- and WE (including YOU) are still talking about them 45 years later ! How am I "proping up" White artists at the expense of Blacks ? I said numerous times that Little Richard, Berry, Diddley, and many others were great...and so were the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Eric Clapton. I'm talking about musical talent, and you seem to be blinded by politics (which I said MANY times that I basically agree with you on). But you seem to be DOWNGRADING the talent of Whites in order to elevate the Blacks, in some sort of attempt at musical affirmative action. Perhaps you need to broaden your musical palatte, and listen "outside the box"...ironically, as Jumi Hendrix did when he fell in love with music of Bob Dylan and all the bruthas and sistas in Harlem took to him to task for listening to "that White boy music".....BTW- "Hey Joe", one of Jimi's best known songs, was originally written by a folk singer named Billy Roberts , and was recorded by the Leaves and the Byrds (2 folk-rock groups) before Hendrix took it on, and put his own spin on it

[Edited 3/9/16 21:09pm]

SeventeenDayze said:

luvsexy4all said:

would there be a beatles WITHOUT little richard coming first?????

Exactly. But you have people in this thread trying to say "everyone" did covers. Excuse me but who performed "Tootie Fruity" first??? The deniala and dismissive attitude people have towards earlier artists before the Beatles is really telling....

Do you have an issue with both James Brown and Otis Redding starting their careers imitating Little Richard ? LITERALLY, in Brown's case, as before he himself was famous, would actually appear AS Little Richard (since promoters figured in those days before a lot of these artists appeared on TV that people didn't really know what the artists actually looked like ).... Or is your issue only with SOME people performing covers and being influenced by certain artists ???

luvsexy4all said:

would there be a beatles WITHOUT little richard coming first?????

Would there have been a Little Richard without Sister Rosetta Tharpe and Esquerita and Half-pint Jaxon coming first ???? How far back to you want to take this ?

mjscarousal said:

I think that their impact is mostly in one area. I think their impact is mostly in superstardom and in terms of being the first "pop stars or teen idols" (for their era) they reached the highest peak and formed a blue print for other future pop stars in terms. superstardom....... but I would argue that there are others that have surpassed them even in that area, MJ automatically comes to mind. When it comes to just pop success for their period. However, they get credited a bit to much and are overrated in some ways when it comes to rock n roll musically. Its a shame that none of those black rockers (the real pioneers of rock n roll) never get their respect and proper recognition. I hardly if ever hear Little Richard's name ever mentioned when the birth of rock n roll is discussed. Its always either Beatles or Elvis, who took a lot from black artists.

Then you're reading the wrong books or articles- or maybe not any books or articles.... look for the writings of Robert Palmer, Peter Guralnick, Greil Marcus, Robert Christgau, and especially Dave Marsh. There's a great book called "What was the First rock n roll Record" by Steve Propes and jim Dawson that explores the Blues, R&B, Country, Pop, Jazz, and Gospel roots of Rock music

SeventeenDayze said:

jjhunsecker said:

What I'm saying it that Little Richard these days is about selling his persona as the outrageous "King...and Queen of Rock"....not much different than Libreace. Which is fine, if that is his choice. It's not about the music anymore. Now compare him to his contemporary, Jerry Lee Lewis, who still puts out new music. Or compare him to people slightly younger, who are still serious about their music , and about creating- I'm talking about folks like Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mavis Staples, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard...hell, Loretta Lynn just put out a new album and she's 84 !! I love Richard's work, and understand his place in history, but if you look at it, he only had 2 or 3 years of peak creativity and hit making, from about 1956 to 1959. He has been coasting on those great hits ever since (And BTW- ALL artists start out covering other people on their way to finding their own sound- from Frank Sinatra to Otis Redding to the Rolling Stones to Prince....that's how music works)

Wow, you're being really dismissive of Little Richard. The Beatles were only a group for what, 5 or 6 years, so what's the difference? It's amazing how you seem totally blind to the fact that you are validating the invalidation of black artists to prop up white artists by saying "Well all artists do XYZ"....well excuse me, who first recorded Purple Haze???

And remeber, Jimi got a lot of his moves and stage inspration from Richard (who he worked as a sideman for)....and a lot of guitar influence from BB King, Albert King, Muddy Waters...AND from Eric Clapton , Jeff Beck, Mike Bloomfield, and Pete Townshend....Jimi had an open-minedness towards music that I don't see here on this thread (and he LOVED The Beatles as well !)