Re: Problems with staying in tune!



On 25 Jul 2005 11:26:57 -0700, lbrty4us@xxxxxxx wrote:

>Rich Koerner wrote:
>
>> TALK ABOUT THE *RISK TAKERS*,... Fusion is where it's at!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Well, if you want to test yourself, and see how you hold up playing music on the edge.
>>
>> It can be a scary place, and many players don't LIKE it. It's not for everyone.
>>
>>
>> <thinking>
>>
>>
>> Think of these two breeds of player when you listen to each of the following.
>>
>> One quotes with reverence and respect.
>>
>> http://timeelect.com/things/Greg&Rich2.mp3
>>
>> http://timeelect.com/things/littlething.mp3
>
>Hmmm...but that doesn't describe what's put out in the vast difference
>btw these 2 samples, Rich. And after all, an awful lot of guys learned
>such great cops/covers of these tunes. What I see missing from the
>whole discussion, and related to the samples, is any mention &
>comprehension of the unique & pioneering lyricism JH gave us, which has
>little or nothing to do with dive-bomb flash or noises, and is
>everything in terms of his genius. I don't hear any edge-playing,
>limits-pushing nor creativity in the good sample (the one that is
>music) at all; what I hear is someone who comprehends & respects the
>goods enough to do the opposite: cover this beautiful stuff tastefully
>by immitation, adding nothing to it & deeming it sufficient. I also
>hear an experienced player basically doing "clean" with only enough FX
>to accomplish the goal, understanding that this is an important part of
>expressiveness & control. And of course, a tune like "LW" showcases
>that unique lyrical & melodic genius.
>
>OTOH & for the other kinds of qualities you speak of, quite a number of
>accomplished players have expanded or restyled "LW", keeping its
>essential & unique beauty while adding to & pushing its limits &
>musicality even further.
>
>I'm not sure if "reverence and respect" are actually important here, as
>that's more of a inference or attempted judgement of some private
>matter of the human heart, which no one may see into. But influence,
>understanding, appreciation & ability play into audible results, and
>there are players who privately have no use or respect for JH, who've
>brought all of the things you mention & more to his tunes, & delivered
>very haunting versions of them.
>
>I don't think the humility rule holds well, either. While it's true in
>most cases, there are also cocky pricks who are equally good at these
>things.
>
>One sample has over 2 min of noise lacking a millisecond of musicality
>or tonality that is below the level of what "crap" means to most
>people. The other is a very well-executed cover taking no chances &
>showing melodic & tonal understanding & mastery of the original style,
>and at the level most people would call "excellent." But neither
>approach or push limits, nor fuse anything else into the JH-type
>creation. LW is a very interesting tune with many possibilities for
>these things, and at the same time leaving the past in the past.
>
>Beyond that, ISTM that anyone who hasn't been very affected by, and can
>credibly execute at least some of, JH's harmonic lyricism, has been
>living under a rock or is deaf. Even millions of acoustic players
>incorporate some of JH's devices & structures. I always thought all of
>this vast influence & his greatness was too obvious & pervasive to
>mention. I mean nothing personal toward anyone in saying that I was
>astonished that someone could make a clip somewhat related to the
>subject of JH, and regardless of one's mental of physical state, manage
>to not play one note showing that he'd ever heard JH. THAT has to be
>some sort of "accomplishment." I'm not smart enough to classify what
>it might be. ;-)

Without attempting to address all your points, it seems to me that the
thing is that there was obviously more to Jimi than feedback. And
there was at the very least a structure to what Jimi did.

And another thing is that one guy had an appreciation for what Jimi
did and showed respect, while the other guy essentially spat on his
grave in a very offensive way and made big claims as if he was somehow
*better* than Hendrix, but couldn't back it up.

It's not like everything Hendrix did was stepping out over the edge
anyhow. But when Jimi stepped out over the edge, he did it without
killing himself on the jagged rocks below. You have to take some
risks, but causing musical mayhem isn't a risk, it's just reckless.

As far as wanking goes (other parts of the thread), most of Hendrix's
leads were almost as if that followed a story board. I wouldn't call
him a wanker. A whole lot of players that came before and after him
are though.

Pete


--
But if you are after mere parlor tricks,
you will be sorely disappointed. --Dr. Orpheus

.