50's / 60's Region - #2 The Rolling Stones vs #7 Jimi Hendrix

[IrishCanadian25]

5th Round 50's / 60's Region Match

#2 The Rolling Stones vs #7 Jimi Hendrix

Please take into account the entire body of work of the artists, their mark on the music industry and/or society as a whole, their influence on other artists, lyrics, music, etc. If you have not already done so, please review the rules of the tournament and the Wrestlezone Forums. Have fun! PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU VOTE FOR THE BAND YOU INTEND TO VOTE FOR! MOVING FORWARD, IF YOU CLICK THE WRONG BAND, YOUR VOTE WILL HAVE TO STAND!

​

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I voted for Hendrix for a few reasons.

1. I was discussing in the Elvis / Zeppelin thread the importance race had on Elvis's legacy, and whether or not he "stole" black music. A case can be made that Elvis paid proper tribute to the African American artists who influenced him, whereas the Rolling Stones here are basically blatant (but talented) rip offs of R&B. The hit that launched them - Satisfaction - was a cover of an R&B song. Of course, since Elvis had taken all of the heat for racial tensions in rock and roll, the Stones were largely safe. It's similar to many black home run hitters in baseball who came JUST after Hank Aaron.

2. Hendrix, along side Clapton, Vaughn, Vai, and several others, totally recreated how we look at and use the guitar. In fact, a case could be made that Hendrix was the biggest influence on mainstream guitar rock since Les Paul. Hendrix removed the stereotype of the electric guitar as just a "louder acoustic guitar" and gave it its own legacy and persona. Without Hendrix's louder but very clean guitar work, there is no Hard Rock and no Heavy Metal. In fact, his longer "jam sessions" undoubtedly influenced the development of progressive rock as well, which in turn influenced metal, thrash, techno, etc.

I give Hendrix the edge over the Stones for sheer musical ability, influence, and originality.

 

[Joaquim Akaem]

Gotta be Stones here, no two ways about it.

Jimi is good an all, well, purely based on his guitar skills he was the best ever. but overall, I would much rather listen to a Rolling Stones record than a Jimi Hendrix record.

It might just be me, but I see Jimi Hendrix as a one dimentional artist, by that I mean theres not a lot of variation in his tracks. Sure lets all rock out to some sort of voodo chile, or foxxy lady, but thats all, theres not a memorable track where he does a slower meaningful ballard like Angie, He rarely shows his dark evil side in a great song like Paint it Black. Theres nothing that Hendrix ever did as good as You Cant Always Get What You Want.

Seriously, what was the man thinking when he wrote the lyrics. "I stand up next to a mountain And I chop it down with the edge of my hand". I can't make sense out of any of it, it sounds cool, but its all nonsense.

Musical ability, influence and originality, i hear you say......

Musical ability.... pah! If you were to say the ability to play a musical instrument, you would be corect, but lyrically?, melodically? Stones > Hendrix easy. What about stage presence and the old favourite "sales and chart positions". Now, i dont care much about how many albums a band have sold or how many top 10 hits they've had, but I know that selling ability has been the main point in many a debate on this forum, and Stones pretty much outsell everyone.

Originality and Influence. Both questionable, Hendrix could possibly edge it in one or both cases to be fair, but it would be close. One of the greatest movie characters of all time was based on Keith Richards, and I never seen anyone like Jagger on stage, that guy could command an audience.

So...... yeah... thats pretty much all I have right now, without some ridiculous amount of research on Wiki.
I'm voting for Rolling Stones. May they take the bracket, and i wouldn'd be mad if they won outright.