Originally Posted by: Homebrew1709... But to answer the question, im gonna say Hendrix, because he really defined putting your heart and soul into making and playing music. Even though Nirvana was my first musical love and got me into music permanently

[font=trebuchet ms]I think the key difference is that there was no sudden proliferation of Jimi Hendirx Experience clones. But there was a whole genre of **** based on Nirvana.

I was there at the time. Jimi was looked up to as a god. No-one really tried to emulate him - he was way out there, where no-one else dared to go. The stuff he was doing defied anyone to follow. There was no possible way for The Biz to slap together a bunch of clone-bands to cop a piece of the action. The only one I remember from that time who sounded even a little bit like Hendrix was Frank Marino and his band Mahogany Rush. That was a couple of years after Jimi died. And he didn't get diddly in terms of major label support. Jimi didn't have any peers. He really was unique.

And that's where the term revoloutionary doesn't fit him very well. You can't start a revoloution if no-one joins in. You aren't a leader if no-one follows you.

I loathe, despise, and detest the grunge era. :mad: But that can't change the fact that a revolution was based on the crap that Kurt Cobain fostered.[/font]