quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
For me, The Replacements could have been a much bigger band, all of the elements were there; chemistry, songwriting, etc. But due to their negative attitude with the industry, their hatred of conventional marketing & self-promotion, all fueled by self-destructive alcohol consumption, they alienated so many record industry folks that their potential rise in sales and stature was never going to go anywhere. Even though they always made the top 10 critic's lists each year, they barely sold any albums.

quote:

Originally posted by vinnybass:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
[snip]Another band that should have made it bigger was XTC.

Agreed. I absorbed every minute of their material. From the In-Your-Face brash seventies, through the huge Todd Rundgren production on Skylarking, & on into mega-giants (IMO) Oranges & Lemons, and Nonsuch. I'll never fathom how they weren't more widely acclaimed.

quote:

Mazzy Star recorded one of his songs, "Five String Serenade" in the 1990s. This recording probably sold more than everything else Lee wrote or recorded

quote:

While I am a Stevie Ray fan, I think he got to say most of what he was going to say. His mainstream career was almost twice that of Hendrix (seven years vs four), and his material was nowhere even approaching the variety of what Hendrix produced. Jimi was all over the map, musically, and listening to his live playing, he approached music in a completely different way than Stevie.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
While I am a Stevie Ray fan, I think he got to say most of what he was going to say. His mainstream career was almost twice that of Hendrix (seven years vs four), and his material was nowhere even approaching the variety of what Hendrix produced. Jimi was all over the map, musically, and listening to his live playing, he approached music in a completely different way than Stevie. Stevie mastered a few handfuls of really cool licks and found pleasing ways to string them together. His playing was juicy and clean, yes. He was more of a guitar guy than Jimi, for whom it was merely a vessel for the song. Listen to five live Stevie songs and you'll hear all the same licks, in each song, just jumbled up in different ways. Listen to some live Hendrix, and listen to an artist playing to the song. The amazing variety in the different live performances of "Machine Gun" would be my best example. The two different recorded live shows at the Filmore, and the live performance of it on a variety show all have the same structure and lyrics, but are wildly different in tone and feel. The Band of Gypsies version still absolutely blows me away every time, and that was more or less right at the end for him.

My old boss explained it to me this way: "Jimi was exciting because nobody knew what he was going to do when he took the stage. Nobody knew because he didn't know what he was going to do, either. It just all happened, and it was rock 'n roll." Stevie went onstage every night knowing every note he was going to play, and so did his audience.


I realize what I'm saying is tantamount to heresy for plenty of guitar players out there, but it's my opinion formed of having to listen to a lot of both at work, all the time.

quote:

Originally posted by CoinRoller:
Many great names have been suggested, and I wouldn't argue against any of them. However, I wish Lowell George (Little Feat) had stayed with us longer...his slide work was amazing, as was his storytelling. RIP

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by YellowJacket:

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
While I am a Stevie Ray fan, I think he got to say most of what he was going to say. His mainstream career was almost twice that of Hendrix (seven years vs four), and his material was nowhere even approaching the variety of what Hendrix produced. Jimi was all over the map, musically, and listening to his live playing, he approached music in a completely different way than Stevie. Stevie mastered a few handfuls of really cool licks and found pleasing ways to string them together. His playing was juicy and clean, yes. He was more of a guitar guy than Jimi, for whom it was merely a vessel for the song. Listen to five live Stevie songs and you'll hear all the same licks, in each song, just jumbled up in different ways. Listen to some live Hendrix, and listen to an artist playing to the song. The amazing variety in the different live performances of "Machine Gun" would be my best example. The two different recorded live shows at the Filmore, and the live performance of it on a variety show all have the same structure and lyrics, but are wildly different in tone and feel. The Band of Gypsies version still absolutely blows me away every time, and that was more or less right at the end for him.

My old boss explained it to me this way: "Jimi was exciting because nobody knew what he was going to do when he took the stage. Nobody knew because he didn't know what he was going to do, either. It just all happened, and it was rock 'n roll." Stevie went onstage every night knowing every note he was going to play, and so did his audience.


I realize what I'm saying is tantamount to heresy for plenty of guitar players out there, but it's my opinion formed of having to listen to a lot of both at work, all the time.

Spot on assessment of both imo. You can still enjoy listening to SRV more while recognizing the avant garde exploratory genius of Hendrix.

My only caveat to it would be that SRV filtered his style down to the things that worked, for the most part. Jimi flowed so freely that there was some really weird, frankly non-musical stuff that came forth.

As far as this thread, I agree it is more exciting to think about what Jimi would have produced than what Stevie still had to show us. Jimi had all of that R&B influence too... I think he could have given us what Sly Stone and Prince gave us, and then some.