If Hendrix had lived until 1977...

[Mr Badguy]

...What would the punks have made of him?

This question came into my mind when I was reading an article about how the punks hated self indulgent musicianship and grandiose musical concepts.

Hendrix wasn`t impartial to rounding out his concerts with long drawn out, free form and, yes, self indulgent guitar solos.

However, in the late 1960`s, Hendrix was the most anti-establishment figure in the music world, which would have earned him respect from the punks.

Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, ELP and bands of that ilk were all targets for punks vitriol, all bands of superstars with their roots in the 60`s, of which Hendrix would have been by 1977.

This is all conjecture of course, as Hendrix could have been well out of the rock sphere by the late 1970`s and well into jazz.

Your thoughts?

[BruinJer]

I know one thing... death is a great career move because he wouldn't be the legend he is today (if he was still alive).

[Mr Badguy]

Originally posted by BruinJer
I know one thing... death is a great career move because he wouldn't be the legend he is today (if he was still alive).

You think?

Look at the Stones or the remaining members of Led Zeppelin.

They haven`t recorded anything near as good as their early stuff, yet they are still regarded as legends.

Whether Jimi made any more landmark music or not (and I think he would have), he did headline Woodstock and broke new ground in both guitar playing and rock music, that would have been enough to make him legendary alive or dead.

[PutOutTheLights]

ZZZZZZZ

Hendrix suxx.

[Wawazat]

Originally posted by PutOutTheLights
ZZZZZZZ

Hendrix suxx.

Your verbosity is exceeded only by your stupidity.

[Shaun Ponsonby]

Never been much of a fan of the guy's music, but never, in a million years, would I deny his impact or even his ability.

I think he may have just stopped making music after a few years, to be honest.

[binnie]

Ok Hendrix was a genius, not just a guitar genius, a musical genius: those records still sound fresh, and there are so many crazy arrangment and conceptual ideas that don't overwhelm the songs, but add to their impact.

To get back to the subject of the thread, I reckon the punks would have hated him: he may have been anti-establishment, but so were a lot of hippy musicians, and the punks REALLY hated them.

For them, his music would have been too self indulgent (although to these ears only Band of Gypsies could really be called sel-indlugent), even though he didn't really have that much in common with the prog bands that they were trying to kill off.

However, we don't know what Hendrix would have put out between 1970 and 1977: maybe he would have stripped his sound right down to a more straight blues, and that might have been acceptable to the punks, you never know...

[FORD]

As long as he never made a goddamned disco record. Then I would have had to kill him myself!

[StretchOnBass]

Originally posted by FORD
As long as he never made a goddamned disco record. Then I would have had to kill him myself!

I think he would have laughed his ass off the first time he heard the Bee Gee's

I played with Mitch Mitchell, saw Jimi several times and honestly, he was leaning towards jazz and acid rock fusion. I think that would have been just as much a wake up to Jazz as he was to rock.

[BruinJer]

Originally posted by Mr Badguy
You think?

Look at the Stones or the remaining members of Led Zeppelin.

They haven`t recorded anything near as good as their early stuff, yet they are still regarded as legends.

Whether Jimi made any more landmark music or not (and I think he would have), he did headline Woodstock and broke new ground in both guitar playing and rock music, that would have been enough to make him legendary alive or dead.

He is one of the GREATEST guitar players EVER and I LOVE his music... but I just don't think he'd be the legend he is today (if he were still alive). The same with Randy Rhoads...

[DrMaddVibe]

After listening to the "Saturn" tapes, Jimi was taking off into a very new direction. Just like Zeppelin was with ITTOD, they never got a chance to show us where that path was going.

If Jimi was alive in '77 I believe he would've been a force to be reckoned with. I also don't think he would've taken Johnny Rotten lying down either. I could see him remaking "God Save The Queen" and rubbing their noses in it.

[Terry]

From all I've read, I'd guess that had Hendrix lived, by the late 1970s he'd have forsaken the 'rock star' aspects of his act, and just be concentrating on his music to the exclusion of all the other bullshit...

Plus, the man had so much goddamn talent that would it really have MATTERED what John Lydon and the rest had to say about him? Perhaps in the UK, but in the USA punk in the 1970s had a very small impact on what people bought and listened to.

Hendrix was on the verge of firing his management, completing his studios and his record contract with Warner Brothers was up in 1972...the common theme from those who were close to him around the time when he died was that Hendrix was sick of playing large festivals, tired of all the groupies and hangers on, and frustrated that he was being bled dry financially by his management. He was talking about doing short tours in smaller halls using solely his own equipment in order to get the sounds he wanted, filming those shows then sending them to theaters around the country...

We'll never know for sure, but I think if Hendrix had lived until 1977, he couldn't have given a shit less what the punks had said about him.

[rustoffa]

Re: If Hendrix had lived until 1977...

Originally posted by Mr Badguy
This is all conjecture of course, as Hendrix could have been well out of the rock sphere by the late 1970`s and well into jazz.

Your thoughts?

I agree with the idea of Jimi getting into Jazz by the mid-to-late 1970's. The Punk rocking fuckers wouldn't have given him a second thought until Neil Young called him (Jimi) out in a song. Next thing you know, Jimbo's doing a project with Roky Erickson and Wayne Kramer. Forget 'post-punk'...'New Wave' wouldn't have happened!

[Shaun Ponsonby]

Originally posted by Terry

Plus, the man had so much goddamn talent that would it really have MATTERED what John Lydon and the rest had to say about him? Perhaps in the UK, but in the USA punk in the 1970s had a very small impact on what people bought and listened to.

In the UK, punk did have a major impact, but it only lasted aboot a year. It was a fad. They say punk killed prog, but most of the original proggers did their best business after punk (Pink Floyd. Yes, Genesis etc). Also, in the year the Sex Pistols came and went, Pink Floyd released "Animals" (a fan favourite), Yes released "Going For The One" (one of their biggest albums, even had some hit singles), Rush released "Farewell to Kings" etc...etc...

[binnie]

Originally posted by Shaun Ponsonby
In the UK, punk did have a major impact, but it only lasted aboot a year. It was a fad. They say punk killed prog, but most of the original proggers did their best business after punk (Pink Floyd. Yes, Genesis etc). Also, in the year the Sex Pistols came and went, Pink Floyd released "Animals" (a fan favourite), Yes released "Going For The One" (one of their biggest albums, even had some hit singles), Rush released "Farewell to Kings" etc...etc...

True 'dat, it didn't kill Prog.

However, I would say that one year might be a bit of an under-estimation of Punk's impact (although I agree entirely about it being a fashion fad): think about the Clash and other punk bands in the early 80s...

I'd say Punk was a pretty major musical force in England 1977-1982, but not to the detriment of all other kinds of music...