I go both ways on this one. Jimi just went about playing the guitar in a new and different way. While I tend to agree with Bdp on both of his main points:
1) Playing should generally be in service to the song
and
2) Jimi's songs weren't often compelling.
Hendrix may be the rare exception to the rule.
I guess my reasoning is that the other side of the analysis is that playing can also be in service to the technology. One difference between Bach (whose keyboard was a harpsichord) and Mozart is that the latter had access to a newfangled device called a piano. What Mozart did to unleash the instrument's potential is significant (and generally compelling) to me beyond what that playing did for the particular piece at hand.
Fast forwarding to the last century (and NOT drawing any qualitative comparisons), you saw a similar opportunity with both guitar and synthesizer. In my view, the heart of the electric guitar playing evolution occurred in a roughly thirty year span ending in +/- 1965. Charlie Christian, Les Paul, Chuck Berry, and Jimi - as well as a potentially contentious list of bluesmen that I'll avoid selecting - all contributed to the evolution of expression from an instrument that didn't even exist as a commercial product before 1935. That's enough to get me interested, even if the underlying music doesn't always move.
BTW, I'll give Pete Townsend similar props for the synthesizer. For me, the classical world struggled to find good use (although I like some of Phillip Glass' early ideas more than most folks I know) for the instrument. Rock musicians tended to use it as a guitar. Townsend really found a more interesting avenue, IMO.
All in all, an interesting subject to me. My own views are probably somewhat eccentric, s the ever popular:
YMMV.
1) Playing should generally be in service to the song
and
2) Jimi's songs weren't often compelling.
Hendrix may be the rare exception to the rule.
I guess my reasoning is that the other side of the analysis is that playing can also be in service to the technology. One difference between Bach (whose keyboard was a harpsichord) and Mozart is that the latter had access to a newfangled device called a piano. What Mozart did to unleash the instrument's potential is significant (and generally compelling) to me beyond what that playing did for the particular piece at hand.
Fast forwarding to the last century (and NOT drawing any qualitative comparisons), you saw a similar opportunity with both guitar and synthesizer. In my view, the heart of the electric guitar playing evolution occurred in a roughly thirty year span ending in +/- 1965. Charlie Christian, Les Paul, Chuck Berry, and Jimi - as well as a potentially contentious list of bluesmen that I'll avoid selecting - all contributed to the evolution of expression from an instrument that didn't even exist as a commercial product before 1935. That's enough to get me interested, even if the underlying music doesn't always move.
BTW, I'll give Pete Townsend similar props for the synthesizer. For me, the classical world struggled to find good use (although I like some of Phillip Glass' early ideas more than most folks I know) for the instrument. Rock musicians tended to use it as a guitar. Townsend really found a more interesting avenue, IMO.
All in all, an interesting subject to me. My own views are probably somewhat eccentric, s the ever popular:
YMMV.