If one guitarist plays music with more speed and accuracy, and with more feeling...

[Overdrive]

Do you know what chord Cream nail at the beginning of I Feel Free?

No, I've got no perfect pitch and too late to grap a bass. Could be some E7, but that's not it, sounds different. There's something else there. I guess by the nature of the question it's an #9.

Who are you talking about that preceded Berry in Rock and Roll. Sure there were Jazz and Blues guitarist before him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck

I love Chuck Berry, he's the single most important figure in rock imo, I named my cat in his honor, but he is not the originator of his playstyle.

Didn't they already meet on stage before Monterey? Clapton was considered God BEFORE they met but definitely wasn't God after Hendrix had asked to play with Cream onstage in England. And Hendrix was already playing with his teeth at this time. In England this story is told over and over again. So they are contemporaries. I'm pretty sure Hendrix had already done his gigs with Little Richard and Ike Turner by this time.

Yes he did, but at the same time Clapton already toured with Cream material, played with the Yardbirds and left a mark in history on the Beano album.

Playing rhythm for Little Richard is like playing piano for Slayer. Hendrix himself found it useless.

Yes but a lot of the guys mentioned here played more like Hendrix

Hendrix used technology much harder, with more gusto, and with a much bigger presence. No examples needed.

Can you give examples? Not denying Hendrix had a more driven sound, but it's not like EC used a clean HRD at that time.

Good example! Hendrix didn't have a Band at that time and I agree without Hendrix Clapton would be of the most influence. Hard to say if it goes hard Rock or not. The way Hendrix captured that time period is hard to rival - and I don't have Clapton doing that in such a big way. Woodstock has its place in history.

Hardrock would've existed without Hendrix, it was already in the making by 67. Hendrix' Woodstock gig was an afterthought at the time. Monterey was more important.

Honestly I don't like to argue against Hendrix. I prefer him over Clapton by a landslide, but I don't think he was irreplaceable.

You know your stuff and its always a pleasure to have someone on these boards to exchange with.

Music discussions are pretty alright here. No trolling and I don't think it's bad to not agree.

[Prometheus]

I feel free opening chord is the #9. That's why he brought it up - he was proving that Hendrix didn't come up with it.

As an aside, I'd like to nominate the Lemon Song by Zeppelin as the best song ever to feature the "Hendrix chord". JPJ and Page are both so orgasmically good on that track

[Pointguard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3FNLnFg6Ck

I love Chuck Berry, he's the single most important figure in rock imo, I named my cat in his honor, but he is not the originator of his playstyle.

Great find!!! That's definitely Chuck Berry's style. Pop music is always hidden somewhere before we see it. This is very similar to Elvis copying big Mamma Thorton's style. You never hear of it Talk of secrets and untold stories. Elvis also loved and copied a Great Black woman Gospel guitarist that influenced Chuck Berry's guitar style. https://youtu.be/RuVzm86oB1Y?t=117 What's so wild about her is that you definitely hear Charlie Christian here. She even preceded him. And Charlie influenced the whole century of guitar players in all genres. But her image and genre will never allow people to accept her as a key blues or rock guitar player.

Yes he did, but at the same time Clapton already toured with Cream material, played with the Yardbirds and left a mark in history on the Beano album.

Playing rhythm for Little Richard is like playing piano for Slayer. Hendrix himself found it useless.

Does it matter if their arrival is within 2 years - which it was and Hendrix definitely impressed people with more impact. And youtube doesn't lack of people talking about how Hendrix got on stage that night.

Can you give examples? Not denying Hendrix had a more driven sound, but it's not like EC used a clean HRD at that time.

Hey Joe, Star Spangle Banner and Purple Haze are not more representative of the 60's feel than anything put out by EC??? Its a question. Cream put out better records and more meaningful records for sure. But not with a more lava lamp feel.

Hardrock would've existed without Hendrix, it was already in the making by 67. Hendrix' Woodstock gig was an afterthought at the time. Monterey was more important.

Woodstock is considered the apex of feel, liberation and the statement of the time. For Rockers its AW (after Woodstock) or AWOL - no other time signature. Rock would have existed but in a weaker presence.

Music discussions are pretty alright here. No trolling and I don't think it's bad to not agree.

Yes me too. Hendrix is far from my favorite musician but I respect the hell out of him. From my perspective, John Coltrane was the most impactful musician in the 60's.

[72-10]

Hendrix didn't import blues into rock... rock music grew straight out of the blues in the first place. That's a big dead end right there... like I can't imagine what you're even thinking when you say that.

I've never thought of Hendrix as being really steeped in the blues notwithstanding the fact that he played the chitlin' circuit down south as the leader of Jimmy James and the Blue Flames, and there's a posthumous album of his material called Blues. Hendrix was too much of a pioneering original to be deeply influenced by the genre as much as other ATG bands such as Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones or any of Eric Clapton's material, especially his early material through Cream. I've always thought of Eric Clapton as the most blues influenced guitarist out of the frequently discussed lot of ATG rock guitarists. Led Zeppelin were certainly more influenced by the blues than Cream were, but Page's guitar work isn't as influenced by the blues as Clapton's guitar work. Hendrix seemed to veer clear of using blues chord progressions most of the time, and he certainly didn't do too many covers. If someone could explain to me how Axis: Bold as Love strongly qualifies as blues rock I'd be happy to hear. I'd have to say Hendrix is one of the most original musicians I've ever heard, kind of like Pink Floyd.

[72-10]

Dissonance usually does not work well? Okay I guess we can't have any cadences then, so no chord progressions at all. Everything from now on will just be a vamp on a single major chord. If we play anything else, it will be dissonant.

I guess there's no chance we could play any blues or jazz, since those particular styles are built on dissonant harmony more than any others. No metal either I suppose.

You took what I said out of context. Like I said/implied, it works fine on a guitar or bass guitar, but not much else.

[72-10]

Yeah, Mitchell was pretty great, really great at attacking the kit...

[Overdrive]

Great find!!! That's definitely Chuck Berry's style. Pop music is always hidden somewhere before we see it. This is very similar to Elvis copying big Mamma Thorton's style. You never hear of it Talk of secrets and untold stories. Elvis also loved and copied a Great Black woman Gospel guitarist that influenced Chuck Berry's guitar style. https://youtu.be/RuVzm86oB1Y?t=117 What's so wild about her is that you definitely hear Charlie Christian here. She even preceded him. And Charlie influenced the whole century of guitar players in all genres. But her image and genre will never allow people to accept her as a key blues or rock guitar player.

Yeah, black people generally didn't get alot of air time and mention on white radio and eventhough you can check anything out on youtube these days the history hasn't changed. It's still Bill Haley & Elvis for most people. Berry's biggest accomplishment was changing that for later generations. He opened the door.

Does it matter if their arrival is within 2 years - which it was and Hendrix definitely impressed people with more impact. And youtube doesn't lack of people talking about how Hendrix got on stage that night.

The story is well known, but as said the moment Hendrix walked on stage Clapton was already a name in rock history. Of course Hendrix was a wildfire while Clapton was a candle, but both still were fire nonetheless and without Hendrix Clapton would've been the guy.

If I want to show people, who don't have any clue about music of that era a song that represents it most I pick Voodoo Child(slight return).

What really helped Hendrix was dying young. By 1970 Clapton still did awesome guitarbased music(Layla and other assorted lovesongs), imagine him dying by then.

Hey Joe, Star Spangle Banner and Purple Haze are not more representative of the 60's feel than anything put out by EC??? Its a question. Cream put out better records and more meaningful records for sure. But not with a more lava lamp feel.

Hendrix used technology much harder, with more gusto, and with a much bigger presence. No examples needed.

Was talking about this. I'd like examples where Hendrix used technology much harder. He used the fuzz face, Clapton didn't, but in general he also used state of the art gear. Actually used some before Hendrix.

Woodstock is considered the apex of feel, liberation and the statement of the time. For Rockers its AW (after Woodstock) or AWOL - no other time signature. Rock would have existed but in a weaker presence.

Most rockers can't name 5 bands playing there. Hendrix played on the last day in the morning. Woodstock was important, but it would've been without Hendrix and it didn't push Hendrix that much either. Cocker's Beatles cover is the standout moment and became a hymn for that period.

Yes me too. Hendrix is far from my favorite musician but I respect the hell out of him. From my perspective, John Coltrane was the most impactful musician in the 60's.

I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.

[Pointguard]

The story is well known, but as said the moment Hendrix walked on stage Clapton was already a name in rock history. Of course Hendrix was a wildfire while Clapton was a candle, but both still were fire nonetheless and without Hendrix Clapton would've been the guy.

If I want to show people, who don't have any clue about music of that era a song that represents it most I pick Voodoo Child(slight return).

What really helped Hendrix was dying young. By 1970 Clapton still did awesome guitarbased music(Layla and other assorted lovesongs), imagine him dying by then.

I like probably four songs by Hendrix and that's it. If I liked more I probably could elaborate better on him. As I said earlier, its just hard to not see his influence in other guitarist and bands. I like more of Clapton's work because of his longevity and his clearer style is more appealing to me.

In many ways, it was just Hendrix's time. He played the guitar upside down and it didn't seem to hinder him any. In fact, it most likely lead to his theatrics which also defined the times. Or as you? said it helped him do technical innovations (use of thumb) that few could rival. His vocal limitations lead to him exploring technology in ways other haven't. And his expression thru technology was not really rivaled. Outside of John Coltrane, no single musician could handle chaos (Star Spangled Banner) like Hendrix either. He had already redefined a classic in a way nobody dreamed. And to be honest, he played fearlessly in a way that you could see he didn't have boundaries. He also had the definitive performance of the age and gave the direction of the music moreso than anybody. These traits would make a person great in most disciplines in life.

So him dying early definitely didn't over hype him because most of those qualities/traits aren't a part of other greats who played for 50 years.

Was talking about this. I'd like examples where Hendrix used technology much harder. He used the fuzz face, Clapton didn't, but in general he also used state of the art gear. Actually used some before Hendrix.

The wawa peddle in Voodoo child was novel at that time. The whammy bar in Star Spangle Banner. In general Hendrix was more intense, aggressive and hardcore than Clapton was and that was the direction guitar playing took.

Most rockers can't name 5 bands playing there. Hendrix played on the last day in the morning. Woodstock was important, but it would've been without Hendrix and it didn't push Hendrix that much either. Cocker's Beatles cover is the standout moment and became a hymn for that period.

They both did covers of popular songs at that time. Ask any guitarist which was the more spell binding performance. Cocker didn't even have a guitar for that performance. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/woodstock-performances/
And I definitely heard the guy in the number two spot (Carlos Santana) on that list say Hendrix was on a different level than any other guitarist after being there at Woodstock.

I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.

The Beattles were super impressive but were they influential enough to set up a bunch of copy cats bands? - the Monkeys don't count. Dylan was very unique, too unique to set up a new trend. But he did set up Simon and Garfunkle. But if you lived this time I would have to defer to you here.

[Pointguard]

I think the Beatles or Dylan are, both not my favs.

Speaking of Dylan what Hendrix did with his song is crazy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY

Dylan change the way he sang his own song after hearing Hendrix do it. I'm not crazy about the song but the way Hendrix changed it was on time.

[Overdrive]

I like probably four songs by Hendrix and that's it. If I liked more I probably could elaborate better on him. As I said earlier, its just hard to not see his influence in other guitarist and bands. I like more of Clapton's work because of his longevity and his clearer style is more appealing to me.

In many ways, it was just Hendrix's time. He played the guitar upside down and it didn't seem to hinder him any. In fact, it most likely lead to his theatrics which also defined the times. Or as you? said it helped him do technical innovations (use of thumb) that few could rival. His vocal limitations lead to him exploring technology in ways other haven't. And his expression thru technology was not really rivaled. Outside of John Coltrane, no single musician could handle chaos (Star Spangled Banner) like Hendrix either. He had already redefined a classic in a way nobody dreamed. And to be honest, he played fearlessly in a way that you could see he didn't have boundaries. He also had the definitive performance of the age and gave the direction of the music moreso than anybody. These traits would make a person great in most disciplines in life.

As I said before I think Hendrix is the definite musician for that time, with Joplin and Morrison coming in as 2nd and 3rd. I just don't think he's unreplaceable. Everything about him fit. Some for the #2 and #3 places, most others lacked an aspect or two.

So him dying early definitely didn't over hype him because most of those qualities/traits aren't a part of other greats who played for 50 years.

Absolutely not, but Clapton becoming a heroin junk and doing snoozefest music let his career flatten out. Had he died after Layla, he would've been seen differently. Now he's the "Tears in heaven"-guy.

The wawa peddle in Voodoo child was novel at that time. The whammy bar in Star Spangle Banner. In general Hendrix was more intense, aggressive and hardcore than Clapton was and that was the direction guitar playing took.

As said Clapton used the wah first and pretty prominently, but sure Voodoo was the breakthrough song for it. Same for the whammy it was a surf rock thing, but Hendrix made it big. Which again leads me to the point that Hendrix was shining brightest, but wasn't solely responsible for bringing it to the mainstream.

They both did covers of popular songs at that time. Ask any guitarist which was the more spell binding performance. Cocker didn't even have a guitar for that performance. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/woodstock-performances/
And I definitely heard the guy in the number two spot (Carlos Santana) on that list say Hendrix was on a different level than any other guitarist after being there at Woodstock.

From a musical perspective, yes, but Hendrix had the shittiest spot on the gig and the movie is what helped him make it a cult performance. Him being a nobody, coming back from England and exploding in Monterey is the defining point in his career imo.

The Beattles were super impressive but were they influential enough to set up a bunch of copy cats bands? - the Monkeys don't count. Dylan was very unique, too unique to set up a new trend. But he did set up Simon and Garfunkle. But if you lived this time I would have to defer to you here.

Hendrix didn't spawn copycat bands either, but both heavily influenced aspects of music going forward.

Dylan brought the whole "guy with a guitar doing social cricism in a caf

[Prometheus]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

[Overdrive]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

Woodstock had two signature songs by him Monterey hadn't, but still overall Monterey > Woodstock.

[Pointguard]

As I said before I think Hendrix is the definite musician for that time, with Joplin and Morrison coming in as 2nd and 3rd. I just don't think he's unreplaceable. Everything about him fit. Some for the #2 and #3 places, most others lacked an aspect or two.

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not? The biggest thing about him dying young is what happens if he gets the band that clicks like Cream. The older he gets the more he gets that chance. Clapton was playing for Golden State in Cream. Joplin and Morrison - I wonder if they would have taken the leadership role to play that way. Its hard to be fearless and express yourself differently than others. Its a rare trait.

Absolutely not, but Clapton becoming a heroin junk and doing snoozefest music let his career flatten out. Had he died after Layla, he would've been seen differently. Now he's the "Tears in heaven"-guy.

I like his thoughtful, clean execution.

As said Clapton used the wah first and pretty prominently, but sure Voodoo was the breakthrough song for it. Same for the whammy it was a surf rock thing, but Hendrix made it big. Which again leads me to the point that Hendrix was shining brightest, but wasn't solely responsible for bringing it to the mainstream.

Some of Hendrix's stuff... he was the gifted one who could bring colors to music. Even to me when I don't like the song I respect that. He was that dude.

From a musical perspective, yes, but Hendrix had the shittiest spot on the gig and the movie is what helped him make it a cult performance. Him being a nobody, coming back from England and exploding in Monterey is the defining point in his career imo.

I think it's the most impressive part of his career. He was amused at his effect on people at the Monterey concert and people were amused at an unknown with this mystic magic.

[quote]
Dylan brought the whole "guy with a guitar doing social cricism in a caf

[72-10]

Hendrix's woodstock set was not very good. He didn't even have a band at the time. He was playing with a ragtag crew who had just learned his songs weeks prior. His Monterey set was 100000x better and more important at the time. It was his USA breakthrough, and his performance was excellent. Woodstock he came on at like 8am Monday morning. His whole set felt like the final exhausted vestiges of a long acid trip. Sloppy, sleep-deprived, with like 90% of the crowd gone already.

Yeah, it was a bit of a sloppy set, probably due to the LSD seeping into his skin from his headband. That was with Band of Gypsys if I recall correctly.

[72-10]

Woodstock had two signature songs by him Monterey hadn't, but still overall Monterey > Woodstock.

Despite that I think he got outshone by Otis Redding at Monterey.