CDs in your player now

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by amesj523

It's a dream with in a dream. It's meant to be free-associative. It's not linear.

Yeah, I understand the with Uylssess he was trying to capture the sensation of a single day, while Wake explored the sensations of the dream world. And I understand that dream states can be incomprehensible or worked through a different form of language. It just isn't terribly fun reading, and the incomprehensiblity eventually collapses upon itself, in my view.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

His short story collection Dubliners is pretty accessible and (in my view) entertaining to boot. A Portrait of the Artist isn't terribly difficult either, though can get dull in spots (I've never been a big fan of the 'artist writing about his art' type of story--strikes me as masturbatory). Ulyssess and Finnegan's Wakeon the other hand...thanks, but no thanks. Maybe you can explain the latter to me one day. Scores of essayists have tried to interpret it over the decades, with minimal success.

Joseph Campbell (of all people) wrote an excellent guide to Wake. But it's still a b**** to get through. Ulysses is one of my all time faves. I usually read it every two years or so.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Yeah, I understand the with Uylssess he was trying to capture the sensation of a single day, while Wake explored the sensations of the dream world. And I understand that dream states can be incomprehensible or worked through a different form of language. It just isn't terribly fun reading, and the incomprehensiblity eventually collapses upon itself, in my view.

It's full of puns, and you have to do some work to get some of it. I'm a huge fan linguistic devices and fun with words. (Even to music - it's one reason i like modest mouse).

I guess in some ways - FinnAgain's Wake kinda fits how i think. Maybe that will give faaaar more insight than you ever wanted to know about me. (also why drumming is easier for me - everything is a otomatopia - Flam, rattimacue, etc)

[bombay]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm not going to flame you for it, but I disagree. Of course, it's all subjective, but IMO musicians have to have something else besides technical proficiency to reach the level of (for want of a better word) master. Let's call it "voice." Alvin Lee was super fast but that was his entire schtick. Everbody watched him and went, "Gee." Small voice. They call Clapton "Slow Hand" but his "voice" has been huge over the last four decades. Hell, just listen to "Have You Heard" on the Bluesbreakers album when Eric was about 18. I love Jeff Beck's playing. He's a technical powerhouse. But his "voice" pales next to Clapton's (IMHO).

When you talk about Hendrix, you talk about a guy with a huge voice, a voice that pretty much redirected the music of his time. Even Clapton says this. I tried to explain this to a young guy at a Guitar Center once who was making the argument that Hendrix was not that big a deal (ostensibly because this kid had learned some of his licks). I realized I couldn't tell him anything, and the reason was because Hendrix invented whole "sounds" that didn't exist before he came along. Of course, they've been beaten into the ground since then by numerous folks (Trower, Vaughn, etc.) so it's impossible to get that sense of hearing it for the first time.

I remember the first Zep album coming out. We were blasting it. In fact, the drummer in our band used to blast it on his headphones while playing along (damn, he was good - had a real Keith Moon sound). I thought Page was great. I still enjoy those first few albums immensely. But do I think Page has the same stature of "voice" as Clapton and Hendrix? Nope.

Rep. Damn well stated.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Joseph Campbell (of all people) wrote an excellent guide to Wake. But it's still a b**** to get through. Ulysses is one of my all time faves. I usually read it every two years or so.

I made it through Ulysses once. I understand that the narrative innovation is genius, etc. but sticking in obscure references to mythology and random latin phrases is annoying and showing off to me (I feel the same way about a lot of T.S. Eliot). I think Faulkner took the narrative devices Joyce introduced and managed to utilize and expand upon them in ways that were both insightful and entertaining.

[Rohirrim]

IMO, the great artists transcend the barriers of culture and time. There's a great scene in Amadeus where Salieri is trying to impress the young priest (who has come to give him the last rites) with one of his compositions. He sings a bit of it, but the priest doesn't recognize it. He tells the young priest how he was a great court composer and wrote some of the greatest operas of the day. He hums another bit and still, the priest doesn't recognize it. Then, Salieri gets a gleam in his eye. He hums another bit of music. The priest's eyes light up and he says, "Oh, I know that one" and finishes the melody for Salieri. Salieri sneers, "That's Mozart."

The great artists of music could not attain Mozart's perfection, and yet the simplest worker in the street loved his music. That's transcendence. That's when an artist has soared beyond the limits of his own time and the barriers of his culture.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

IMO, the great artists transcend the barriers of culture and time. There's a great scene in Amadeus where Salieri is trying to impress the young priest (who has come to give him the last rites) with one of his compositions. He sings a bit of it, but the priest doesn't recognize it. He tells the young priest how he was a great court composer and wrote some of the greatest operas of the day. He hums another bit and still, the priest doesn't recognize it. Then, Salieri gets a gleam in his eye. He hums another bit of music. The priest's eyes light up and he says, "Oh, I know that one" and finishes the melody for Salieri. Salieri sneers, "That's Mozart."

The great artists of music could not attain Mozart's perfection, and yet the simplest worker in the street loved his music. That's transcendence. That's when an artist has soared beyond the limits of his own time and the barriers of his culture.

I agree with parts of that....

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I made it through Ulysses once. I understand that the narrative innovation is genius, etc. but sticking in obscure references to mythology and random latin phrases is annoying and showing off to me (I feel the same way about a lot of T.S. Eliot). I think Faulkner took the narrative devices Joyce introduced and managed to utilize and expand upon them in ways that were both insightful and entertaining.

I don't find it showing off, as i do how Joyce used words. Just a different perspective...

[BroncoBuff]

Roh I understand lots of what you're saying, I just disagree.

Hendrix' music has very little "voice" in my view. His guitar playing broke insane barriers and trod much new ground, no doubt. But part of the reason your lil' buddy at Guitar Center didn't think much of him was because his music has no voice. As you said, his wildly ahead of his time guitar playing techniques and styles have been co-opted by others .... who made their own music with those techniques.

Zeppelin on the other hand, their songs transcend all of that. Page's guitar playing - though excellent - is just a part of the much larger MUSIC, and music-altering music. Zep's MUSIC, as opposed to Hendrix' music and even Clapton's music, is transcendent, and I'm 100% sure your lil' buddy knows ALL the Zeppelin songs.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Roh I understand lots of what you're saying, I just disagree.

Hendrix' music has very little "voice" in my view. His guitar playing broke insane barriers and trod much new ground, no doubt. But part of the reason your lil' buddy at Guitar Center didn't think much of him was because his music has no voice. As you said, his wildly ahead of his time guitar playing techniques and styles have been co-opted by others .... who made their own music with those techniques.

Zeppelin on the other hand, their songs transcend all of that. Page's guitar playing - though excellent - is just a part of the much larger MUSIC, and music-altering music. Zep's MUSIC, as opposed to Hendrix' music and even Clapton's music, is transcendent, and I'm 100% sure your lil' buddy knows ALL the Zeppelin songs.

As you may already know, I don't argue with Gopis.

[BroncoBuff]

PERFECT ANALOGY (well, imperfect, but illustrative): The automatic transmission in your car is an INSANE invention that is more complicated than you'll probably ever know. The automatic transmision alone has more parts and is more complicated that the rest of the entire car combined. Most of us know that.

But does anybody talk about the inventor of the AT? Or about what kind of AT they have in their car? No, of course not. They might mention AT in passing, 3 or 4 speeds, but it's never the main topic. On the other hand, the MAKE and MODEL of cars are up for endless debate and discussion. Which are the most influential designs? How the Cadillac advanced the luxury automobile as a whole, or how the Chrysler Imperial as an answer to the Caddy was just a bit too ahead of its time, etc etc. They all USE the insanely revolutionary and complicate AT to make their cars better, but the closest you'll come to talking about the AT is saying how "smooth" the ride is.


Jimi Hendrix = automatic transmission
Led Zeppelin = Cadillac

[bombay]

Hendrix' 'reach' has spanned the nearly 38 years since his death. Considering the short span from the time he burst upon the scene with Are You Experienced until he died, that's astonishing. If anyone here has read Clapton's autobiography, I think it expresses very well how he was viewed at the time - with a bit of awe - even by his peers.

[BroncoBuff]

Jimi Hendrix = Insanely complex revolutionary PART.
Led Zeppelin = Insanely revolutionary VEHICLE makers that use Hendrix' PART.


Actually, Hendrix' personal packaging of his own revolutionary PART into a VEHICLE was largely forgettable. But Zeppelin's assembly of Hendrix' part, American bluesmen's parts, Beatles parts, Elvis parts, and their own parts yielded the most influential VEHICLE in rock/hard rock history.

Like most young people, Roh's lil' buddy is under-informed about history, so his appreciation of the PART - however indispensible that part may be - is far less than his appreciation of the VEHICLE.

[Rohirrim]

Sorry. I have to give "most influential" award to the Beatles, by far. And when I say "by far" I mean on the cosmic level. Somewhere after that (maybe a solar system or two) comes the Stones, Hendrix, Clapton and then a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems) comes Zep.

[BroncoInferno]

Buff--I think you're mistaken in the assumption that young people don't appreciate Hendrix. He still hauls in a lot of fans. I also think his vehicle is superior to Zeppelin's repetitiveness and often inane lyrics.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by bombay

Hendrix' 'reach' has spanned the nearly 38 years since his death.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. In fact, I don't. Roh's little buddy kinda proves his reach is gone.

Considering the short span from the time he burst upon the scene with Are You Experienced until he died, that's astonishing. If anyone here has read Clapton's autobiography, I think it expresses very well how he was viewed at the time - with a bit of awe - even by his peers.

Well, the same can apply to the inventor of the AT. Even had he died the day his patent application was submitted, he would still be lauded "by his peers" as a revolutionary inventor of an indispensible part universally used by the industry.

I may be just a "Gopi" (wtf? ), but I'm liking this automatic transmission analogy

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Buff--I think you're mistaken in the assumption that young people don't appreciate Hendrix. He still hauls in a lot of fans. I also think his vehicle is superior to Zeppelin's repetitiveness and often inane lyrics.

Yes, I'm sure there are many young Hendrix fans ... rightly so. But I'll bet sales of Hendrix albums are nominal at best ... same for Cream, Blind Faith, Derek & the Dominos, early Clapton. At least compared to Led Zeppelin.

In fact, I'll bet any ONE of Zeppelin I, II or IV alone outsells today all Cream, D&D, Blind Faith and Hendrix (non greatest hits) albums combined.

Yep, I'll bet that.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

I'm not so sure I agree with this. In fact, I don't. Roh's little buddy kinda proves his reach is gone.



Well, the same can apply to the inventor of the AT. Even had he died the day his patent application was submitted, he would still be lauded "by his peers" as a revolutionary inventor of an indispensible part universally used by the industry.

I may be just a "Gopi" (wtf? ), but I'm liking this automatic transmission analogy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi

You're a Zep Gopi.

You also have to take into account that Zep came after the Beatles, Stones, Clapton, the Who, Hendrix, etc. etc. etc. so one must assume that much of their gear box is derivative.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

IMO, the great artists transcend the barriers of culture and time.

Zeppelin has done so.

Hendrix definitely has not.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Yes, I'm sure there are many young Hendrix fans ... rightly so. But I'll bet sales of Hendrix albums are nominal at best ... same for Cream, Blind Faith, Derek & the Dominos, early Clapton. At least compared to Led Zeppelin.

In fact, I'll bet any ONE of Zeppelin I, II or IV alone outsells today all Cream, D&D, Blind Faith and Hendrix (non greatest hits) albums combined.

Yep, I'll bet that.

Here's an eye-opener: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...bums_worldwide

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Zeppelin has done so.

Hendrix definitely has not.

The only rock and roll band I would put in that category would be the Beatles.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Sorry. I have to give "most influential" award to the Beatles, by far. And when I say "by far" I mean on the cosmic level. Somewhere after that (maybe a solar system or two) comes the Stones, Hendrix, Clapton and then a comet's throw back (perhaps a couple of more star systems) comes Zep.

Nah...Zeppelin is a somewhat direct line from the Beatles to everything after.

Hendrix influenced some players.

Clapton wasnt as much of an influence as he was influenced. If you like what Clapton does, you go beyond him to his sources, which are much better.

[bombay]

I wasn't going to mention this, because I'm not sure it bolsters my argument, but the first time my 13 year old Panic At The Disco fan daughter heard Hendrix coming out of my stereo, she demanded the disc so she could rip it (see? that doesn't help at all)

Guitar store guy is a just one young person, though, and probably doesn't speak for or to any larger group of young people. It would be interesting to actually run down current sales numbers. I'd be kind of surprised if all of the bands mentioned aren't running pretty close to neck and neck.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

The only rock and roll band I would put in that category would be the Beatles.

I submit to you, sir, that a category of one is not a category at all.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopi
You're a Zep Gopi.

Hindu cow-herding girl? I guess I qualify

You also have to take into account that Zep came after the Beatles, Stones, Clapton, the Who, Hendrix, etc. etc. etc. so one must assume that much of their gear box is derivative.

No doubt whatsoever Zeppelin is derivative. But they broke SO MUCH GROUND, that it's hardly important to mention. Same with the Beatles ... they were derivative too at first, but like Zeppelin, they transcended their source material by such a margin as to render those sources a neglibible part of the whole.

Again, Hendrix as an artist is largely forgettable. I had all his albums, but the only CD I have now is a greatest hits one. And out of 3000 or 4000 mp3s in my computer, none are Hendrix. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate him, I do. Very much. Visited his grave here the first week we moved to Seattle four years ago.