Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenHow is that a "good point"? That is so incredibly irrelevant. It's so pathetic that people use a person's fame as a way to argue their way. Look, Clapton's technique sucks. I never said he was a poor songwriter or anything like that, but face it, his technique really really sucks. Same with Hendrix. *Gasp*! Not Hendrix! Now that's not to say that I don't appreciate him as a social icon, but I'd like to hear anyone argue that Clapton and Hendrix had good technique. And the argument that they had "good technique" for their time is bull****, too. Ever heard of Django Reinhardt? Two fingers. Two fingers.

~Incidents


but eric clapton and jimi hendrix wouldn't compare to the guitarists we have today. They were big because they were the first of there time to do sick licks and stuff.. ya know?

Just a few minutes ago, I finished reading a very thorough biography on Frank Zappa -- a man who spent most of his life surrounding himself with the very best musicans he could get his hands on. From Rock, to Jazz, to R&B, to Classical, he found the best, he pushed them past their limits and brought them to ungodly levels of performance. He also likely created more inovative music than any other composer in the last century.

And in spite of all of this, in his whole life, the one man he left the stage to watch with the audience was Jimi Hendrix.

This may be just my opinion, but that single act speaks more than any amount of words any one of us here has to say.