does giving good rep take rep from you and give it to someone else, or does it just make more for the other person?

[QUOTE=darkavatar]does giving good rep take rep from you and give it to someone else, or does it just make more for the other person?[/QUOTE]

It doesnt take away from you, your rep determines how much you give to other people.

[QUOTE=Distant Echoes]no offence, but i just want your opinion on why you think hes good. I just never met a non-n00b or punk/emo/everything kid in school that could answer me with a real answer[/QUOTE]

Well I have a lot of reasons.

1. He writes great songs, not only lyrically, but great guitar parts as well. They may not be technically magnificent, but I enjoy them a lot just listening to them. They are catchy when they need to be and expressive when they need to be.

2. He plays with an incredible amount of emotion live. He can improvise with the best of them and puts on a show that is full of energy and appealing to the audience.

3. He was a leader in the music movement in the late 60's. Really out in front of the whole generation in some ways. He was pushing new rock music into places it really hadn't been before, and along with Cream, was a real key in developing a mix of hard rock and blues that would lead to the further development of rock music.

I don't think Hendrix is terrible. He's good and was very influential.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Well I have a lot of reasons.

1. He writes great songs, not only lyrically, but great guitar parts as well. They may not be technically magnificent, but I enjoy them a lot just listening to them. They are catchy when they need to be and expressive when they need to be.

2. He plays with an incredible amount of emotion live. He can improvise with the best of them and puts on a show that is full of energy and appealing to the audience.

3. He was a leader in the music movement in the late 60's. Really out in front of the whole generation in some ways. He was pushing new rock music into places it really hadn't been before, and along with Cream, was a real key in developing a mix of hard rock and blues that would lead to the further development of rock music.[/QUOTE]

very well put!

[QUOTE=Distant Echoes]the intro to purple haze is the only good part of that song.

I think Jimi is a terrible guitarist, but a good song writer. I hate when people ask who im listening to, i say The Jimi Hendrix experince, and they give me their whole opinion on Hendrix, whether hE ToALlLi RoX or he sucks ***.

I couldnt imagine listening to Fire and not haveing it stuck in my head all day...what a great song[/QUOTE]

The man was a terrific songwriter. He made great music. He sounded different from everyone else out there. It's that simple.

I like Hendrix; he's not my favorite, but he's alright. One people never talk about much is Castles Made Of Sand. I like that song a lot, but Manic Depression is my favorite.

[QUOTE=lunch998]Well I have a lot of reasons.

1. He writes great songs, not only lyrically, but great guitar parts as well. They may not be technically magnificent, but I enjoy them a lot just listening to them. They are catchy when they need to be and expressive when they need to be.

2. He plays with an incredible amount of emotion live. He can improvise with the best of them and puts on a show that is full of energy and appealing to the audience.

3. He was a leader in the music movement in the late 60's. Really out in front of the whole generation in some ways. He was pushing new rock music into places it really hadn't been before, and along with Cream, was a real key in developing a mix of hard rock and blues that would lead to the further development of rock music.[/QUOTE]
You left out how he helped pioneer the use of distortion, feedback, wah, etc. which was used very rarely until Jimi came and experimented with it

[QUOTE=lunch998]Well I have a lot of reasons.

1. He writes great songs, not only lyrically, but great guitar parts as well. They may not be technically magnificent, but I enjoy them a lot just listening to them. They are catchy when they need to be and expressive when they need to be.

2. He plays with an incredible amount of emotion live. He can improvise with the best of them and puts on a show that is full of energy and appealing to the audience.

3. He was a leader in the music movement in the late 60's. Really out in front of the whole generation in some ways. He was pushing new rock music into places it really hadn't been before, and along with Cream, was a real key in developing a mix of hard rock and blues that would lead to the further development of rock music.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your comprehendible answer

I will give him credit for songwriting, as well as some good guitar parts. And yes, he did bring rock music to a new level, both live and recorded.

but i think if your going to be a guitarist, you should be good all around. Im not the kind of person that judges on speed or nothin, but some of his solos are just to sloppy and not developed well enough to even be considered sounding good. IT is easy to kill a good song with a terrible guitar solo, especially when a realeased album is sopposed to be your 'A' material.

Live though - he was sloppier than all others - just bending and breaking his guitars and making inhumane noises...but live in the 60s/70s, or live at all, id probably enjoy it too.

All in all, i dont like his playing, but it did bring music a step up...i can not bash on him for that. :)

thats just my opinion...no flaming for the love of god

PS - his sloppy work i do like though is 3rd stone from the sun...thats such a crazy song

[QUOTE=KingofDudes]It doesnt take away from you, your rep determines how much you give to other people.[/QUOTE]

Gilmour.... why'd you remake KoD?

I mean, sure, a guy weaned on Satriani and Vai will easily think that Hendrix sucks, that his rare moments of brilliance were the result of drug-induced hazes that caused him to catch fire without even knowing what the hell he was doing. People that think this are only looking at the notes he's playing, not actually listening to his music. It's easy to look at a tab and say that he blows, but just the fact that most all of what he's doing is impossible to reproduce exactly the way he played it is indicative of far more soul and originality than just blithely coming to conclusion that just because his playing isn't regimented and goes up and down a lot, that he didn't have a clue about what he was doing.

[QUOTE=Distant Echoes]Thanks for your comprehendible answer

I will give him credit for songwriting, as well as some good guitar parts. And yes, he did bring rock music to a new level, both live and recorded.

but i think if your going to be a guitarist, you should be good all around. Im not the kind of person that judges on speed or nothin, but some of his solos are just to sloppy and not developed well enough to even be considered sounding good. IT is easy to kill a good song with a terrible guitar solo, especially when a realeased album is sopposed to be your 'A' material.

Live though - he was sloppier than all others - just bending and breaking his guitars and making inhumane noises...but live in the 60s/70s, or live at all, id probably enjoy it too.

All in all, i dont like his playing, but it did bring music a step up...i can not bash on him for that. :)

thats just my opinion...no flaming for the love of god

PS - his sloppy work i do like though is 3rd stone from the sun...thats such a crazy song[/QUOTE]

I actually think the solos are the weakest part of his songs (other than in "Machine Gun", of course). Maybe you place too much weight on them.

[QUOTE=clayman112388]Gilmour.... why'd you remake KoD?[/QUOTE]

P'raps Gilmour hath been banned.

Disconnection your avatar reminds me of the good old days when I lived in Boston.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]I actually think the solos are the weakest part of his songs (other than in "Machine Gun", of course). Maybe you place too much weight on them.[/QUOTE]

i said the solos were the worst parts of his songs...sorry if i worded that weird.

[QUOTE=Distant Echoes]Thanks for your comprehendible answer

I will give him credit for songwriting, as well as some good guitar parts. And yes, he did bring rock music to a new level, both live and recorded.

but i think if your going to be a guitarist, you should be good all around. Im not the kind of person that judges on speed or nothin, but some of his solos are just to sloppy and not developed well enough to even be considered sounding good. IT is easy to kill a good song with a terrible guitar solo, especially when a realeased album is sopposed to be your 'A' material.

Live though - he was sloppier than all others - just bending and breaking his guitars and making inhumane noises...but live in the 60s/70s, or live at all, id probably enjoy it too.

All in all, i dont like his playing, but it did bring music a step up...i can not bash on him for that. :)

thats just my opinion...no flaming for the love of god

PS - his sloppy work i do like though is 3rd stone from the sun...thats such a crazy song[/QUOTE]

I'm glad we can actually have an intelligent discussion about Hendrix. I can easily see how you could not like his slopiness, but I usually find that it is not to the point where it annoys me. Another thing I like about him is that he could bend any note he hits to sound great.

And yes, I forgot to mention other things like the sounds he got from a Strat the no one had ever gotten before. Plus, he was a black guy playing hippie rock and roll. Obviously it had happened before, as some of the leading pioneers of rock music were black. However in the hippie age it was not as common and it represented a lot I think.

I've bounced around a bit (I was born in Chicago, all my relatives live in Chicago, and I go to U of I), but I'm a Boston boy and a Boston fan for better or for worse.

OK, people talk about how AMAZING Hendrixz is, when really they're talking about how enjoyable his music is, but there have been years of people saying how great he is of a guitarist, so that's why he's unquestioned as the master.... which pisses me off.

Plus, Hendrix had an afro and put acid in his headband. Enough said.

Between Hendrix, Santana, and Sly and the Family Stone, minorities were actually fairly well-represented in the late-60's music scene.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]I've bounced around a bit (I was born in Chicago, all my relatives live in Chicago, and I go to U of I), but I'm a Boston boy and a Boston fan for better or for worse.[/QUOTE]
I've bounced around a lot too, but I liked Boston a lot when I lived there

[QUOTE=Johnny B. Good]Disconnection your avatar reminds me of the good old days when I lived in Boston.[/QUOTE]

boston is awesome. I live maybe half an hour away from it. Its crazy.

Where you at now?

EDIT: To JBG

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]Between Hendrix, Santana, and Sly and the Family Stone, minorities were actually fairly well-represented in the late-60's music scene.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget Earth, Wind, and Fire





and James Brown.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]Where you at now?[/QUOTE]
Tucson, Arizona the worst city in the world

I think James Brown fell off a bit between the early 60's and mid 70's, and I'm pretty sure EWF came through in the 70's.

[QUOTE=Johnny B. Good]Tucson, Arizona the worst city in the world[/QUOTE]

Wow! My girlfriend lives there! Crazy.

[QUOTE=Disconnection Notice]Between Hendrix, Santana, and Sly and the Family Stone, minorities were actually fairly well-represented in the late-60's music scene.[/QUOTE]

Good points, I'm just saying it probably meant a lot to the hippie generation and their cause to have a guy like Hendrix being one of the leaders of the scence.

Ah yes, Tuscon!









(knows nothing about Tuscon)

[QUOTE=Johnny B. Good]Don't forget Earth, Wind, and Fire





and James Brown.[/QUOTE]

EWF was '70s, yes?