51
posted ago by Barian84 ago by Barian84 +52 / -1

Jimi Hendrix was a good musician and had some really great stuff but he doesn’t deserve to top basically every list of “greatest guitarists of all time”.

The fact is the black guitarists of the 60’s and 70’s weren’t thrilling audiences because blues and soul and jazz were on the way out as popular music styles and rock was on the way in. Problem for (((them))) was that rock was dominated by talented whites so when Jimi comes along he gets the hell hyped out of him and now the “history of rock” has been thoroughly rewritten to center blacks and the “best rock guitarist” is a black guy.

Thoughts?

Comments (30)
sorted by:
10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
7
Barian84 [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

I don't mean to say that Hendrix isn't a good musician he's just not THE BEST EVER!

Hell, he's not really even the best black guitarist.

5
Fabius 5 points ago +5 / -0

Listen to the Beach Boys if you really want to see how far pop music has degenerated.

The Beach Boys are literally singing about how they want to MARRY their girl and make her their wife. They aren't seeing about Superman or some Negro degenerate shit.

It's a fucking tragedy.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
8
Tulpa 8 points ago +8 / -0

I'm a metal guy mostly so I don't even know. I think Jimi has some good music but you're probably right about the unconditional praise he receives is unwarranted.

8
ICantREEEE 8 points ago +8 / -0

For guitarists like myself, appreciation of his contribution is irrefutable, unique, and aspiring. He went where all great musicians go, to a place saints too have gone, to a place beyond mind and body.

Some of it was surely just guitar noodling, but there are breakthrough moments of mind blowing elevation. The noodling and tunes helped set him up to explore "out there." That's why he holds his position.

He was disciplined in his practice and a master of the electric guitar instrument, who also happens to be a nog. It's definitely not just affirmative action.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
2
Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

He's not greatest, he is absolutely great though.

I like Dave Gilmore.

1
Workingdays 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouldn't even know who to put in the #2

Slash

3
Fabius 3 points ago +3 / -0

Overrated.

Great guitarist though.

5
MGTAU 5 points ago +5 / -0

I have only ever liked the watchtower

4
ChicagoMAGA 4 points ago +4 / -0

Idk, I think what props up Hendrix is that he died young and his performance at Woodstock. It also helps that musicians who were concurrently popular with him also liked his guitar playing.

Where I think the Hendrix worship gets bad is when they mention his military service. If I remember correctly, he was given the choice of either enlisting in the Army or go to jail for riding in a vehicle that was stolen. He joined the 101st Airborne Division, but then was discharged for breaking his ankle. Like Jon Fogerty, his military service was not noteworthy.

3
TooFineAPoint 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree. Decent guitarist. A few good tunes. Could be good live but also just as much chance he could be stoned out of his mind and sloppy beyond belief.

Massively overrated as a songwriter, ridiculously so.

I believe he also has some connection to Laurel Canyon, and anyone interested in the push and connections behind the 60s Hippie music scene should read the book "Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon".

1
thenameisdonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

Added to my to-read list. Read this review: “It’s actually despicable how fast and loose Mr McGowen plays with the facts. By continually doing so in the book, he tries to hypnotize you into his conspiratorial thinking. He looks at the facts and events, sees them through his own biases and reads into them with virtually no evidence for what he’s suggesting. He sees conspiracy in all of the deaths, when in many cases there is nothing to suggest it, like when he implies that the man importing rare animals from South America is doing so as as a front for intelligence gathering, when there is nothing at all to suggest this whatsoever. The book is a classic example of reading into events with out firsthand interviews or supporting evidence. Is his thesis therefore totally wrong? No, there may be some truth but his method is without rigour and lacks integrity. Especially if he’s wrong, then he is downright slandering these celebrities. Sadly, the huge amount of positive reviews indicates a demographic of readers who never were taught critical thinking!! C’mon people?!!!”

Thoughts? I don’t mind authors “leading the witness” so to say, but, just want to make sure it’s not too goofy.

1
TooFineAPoint 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think anyone reading it should imagine they have an open and shut case, or that he proved anything conclusively (and he even points this out a few times in the book).

He has two main annoying things he does:

  1. Writes in a "raised eyebrow" style, where he will present a fact that has been thoroughly documented in other, more mainstream sources, but then immediately write some snarky comment like "and of course people just casually run into one another after 5000 mile drives and not sleeping for days in a city of millions".

  2. He's a dyed in the wool leftist so he can't conceive of any other reason for the astroturfing of the hippie music movement other than "evil right wingers wanted to discredit the real noble anti-war types". Which is silly because there were plenty of right wing America-Firsters who were isolationists and also because the author lived during a time when the political left has been doing the exact same thing.

So yeah, you have to read it critically, and ideally read it alongside some other books about the culture, drugs, and CIA mind control programs of the same era.

But the negative reviews are also just a compendium of Words Words Words (basically mad at conspiracy theories). Dumb reviewer basically does the same thing he accuses the author of doing and accuses anyone positively reviewing it as lacking critical thinking.

The best summary is this:

  • nearly all the LA rockstars had parents high up in the military (since it's post WWII it's reasonable that most men would be connected to the army but a lot of the positions of the families were beyond the normal service man)

  • nearly all the rockstars avoided the draft and avoided heavy prosecution for drug crimes

  • nearly all of them died young and/or of very shady circumstances

  • most of them were barely talented, shitty live, and supported by studio musicians especially in the early albums (he is pretty fair about the people that had obvious chops)... yet they got amazing radio play on corporate stations and signed to big corporate labels (again that could have just been a sign of the times when the corps wanted to cash in on the counterculture)

  • a significant portion of them were child groomers (eg. a rockstar wanting to bang a 16 year old female is not scandalous in the least to me, but some of the weird young people / kid stories are messed up)

  • hints at some of the dark drug stuff that was going on, and clearly enabled by the CIA (this is corroborated by more mainstream books)

So basically it does a nice de-pedestalizing of these so-called rockstars and gets you thinking about the uses of such a movement beyond the "random creative explosion" typical story. Also interesting that it locates the power of the movement in LA and not -- as is typical -- in San Fran.

Oh one other thing I remembered that the author does that is really annoying is that anytime a musician owned a gun, that is evidence to him of fascistic sympathies. I mean he does write dumb and annoying stuff like this, but it's easy to parse.

2
thenameisdonald 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nice, I got it. Pretty much what I figured I’d want to keep in mind going into it. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

HA yes the reviewer I posted sounds like a fag but wanted to get your rebuttal. I’ve read No One Gets Out Alive the Jim Morrison biography and they touched briefly on his dads military service but it also stated that he basically ran away from home as a teenager and never talked to his family again.

1
TooFineAPoint 1 point ago +1 / -0

No worries.

Yeah that sounds like whitewashing from that Morrison bio. Here he is (aged 21) with his Dad who would go on to play a major role in the Gulf Of Tonkin incident just 7 months later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Morrison#/media/File:Bonhommerichard.jpg

3
pizzakek 3 points ago +3 / -0

The whole rock industry has always been fostered as (((rock)))

3
YEETveteran8888 3 points ago +3 / -0

Omg, wholly disagree. Dude is a once in a generation artist. Genuinely great music. If people wanna be black fettishists that's their own deal, but Hendrix is genuinely great.

2
SoySwallower 2 points ago +2 / -0

Disagree, Jimi was magnificent Replace Jimi with rap "music" and you are right though

2
Workingdays 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lewis Hamilton. Same deal.

2
weisschild 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hippies are degenerate.

1
TakenusernameA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jimi whodrix?

1
eagleheart585 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think Hendrix was an alien.

1
Fabius 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you really understand how this dude played guitar and the time period he did it in, he is absolutely one of the greatest of all time.

He's still a Negro.

1
Sublime_Intent 1 point ago +1 / -0

If anything, Jimi is overhyped today because he died at a tragically young age (27 Club), not because he was black. I don't think he's overhyped though.

1
TendieMan 1 point ago +1 / -0

He died before he could really do much so I would consider Eddie Van Halen the greatest guitarist of all time, coincidentally another non-white.

1
Nose_noticer_II 1 point ago +1 / -0

He was also part Native American. Bonus diversity points.

-1
DrNilesCrane___ -1 points ago +1 / -2

Absolutely agreed. Hendrix is way, way overrated. Most garage guitarists are as good as he was.

2
Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're out of your fucking mind.