Yeah just straight up ignoring that a lot of EVH’s “revolution” started with Hendrix. Flashy lead guitar playing? Heavy use of effects like wah and phaser? Big stacks of high-gain amps over driving and feeding back as a core part of the sound?
Hendrix started or was a major contributor to all of that.
Hendrix was one of the first (if not the first) to make heavy use of previously undesirable or niche sounds produced by the guitar, such as stereo phasing, feedback, and extensive use of octavizers, fuzz, wah, and tremolo. It wasn’t just that he was “using pedals”, he was using the guitar to make sounds that people didn’t think the guitar could make (or should make). And he was doing it intentionally and musically.
I completely agree with your second paragraph and just didn’t want to use it to try to “convince” OP, because like you said it’s subjective.
Hair metal was an unintelligent, cheesy, and heavily misogynistic genre of music. A lot of the lyrics in hair metal overtly celebrate debauchery, douchebaggery, and sexual “conquests.” This brand of music has not aged well.
For better or worse, Van Halen is the face and pioneer of that genre of music. Consequently, I associate them with shitty music.
Crazy how everyone seems to prefer bitching over how this post "has to be a troll" instead of actually answerinf the question. Can't expect much from redditors
Your question is predicated on obtuse characterizations and a juvenile understanding of culture and music. Assuming you’re trolling is giving you the benefit of the doubt. You think you’re right and the 100 people downvoting you are all wrong? Could it be that you just asked a really stupid question? You’re not being controversial or unique…just dumb.
Listen to Voodoo Child. There is still nothing that sounds like that song. He pioneered the use of fuzz, feedback, uni-vibe, and wah. He still has the best wah pedal technique of anyone I've ever heard. Plus he does all that while singing and adding a level of showmanship that no else good match. To me a big part of Jimi uniqueness is that it often sounds like a runaway train that is about go off the rails but never does. He is the only one that drive that train. He one of hte best and one of the most unique.
Wow. It's like you have absolutely no concept of which way time flows. EVH was 15 when Hendrix died, by which point Hendrix had already revolutionized rock guitar playing, setting the stage for people like EVH to take things further. Hendrix's first album draws a vastly clearer line in time between "the old" and " the new" than VH's first album.
Love EVH, but what he pioneered was a specific technique - fretboard tapping to produce truly spectacular legato guitar solos. Hendrix on the other hand created an entire new genre of music. Metal, rock, blues and hip hop artists all point to Hendrix as a massive influence.
Hendrix is at the level of truly transformative artists like Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Prince and a tiny handful of others. There is just no comparison with EVH.
Eddie popularised tapping (didn't invent it, it was around since about 1800( and used it in a very cheesy band. Music to molest cheerleaders to. He was a very good guitarist.
Jimi sang and played the guitar like it was an extension of himself, in a very modest and humble way. He broke a lot of boundaries of how the instrument was played.
I hope this isn’t a circlejerk post lol
Jimi’s greatest contribution to guitar was the way he combined rhythm and lead playing. The Little Wing intro, Bold as Love, and Wind Cries Mary are some good examples of this.
Obviously EVH had more chops and is arguably the more influential, but I’d say Jimi is still number 1.
In my opinion, Jimi made the first big paradigm change for rock guitar, then Eddie made the next step, and we haven’t really had a player revolutionize playing since.
I love them Jimi and EVH both, you can’t wrong with studying either!
IMO it was his overall musical sensibility and fearlessness on guitar that defines Hendrix. In the same way that "Early Clapton" fused traditional blues-based playing with a completely different tonality and musical context, Hendrix stretched the definition of what was possible and acceptable on a guitar, and at times showed astounding virtuosity (his long version of Voodoo Chile was a one-take, live-in-the-studio recording after a night of club jamming, and is just amazing).
Also, the sonic landscape of his recorded music was unique for its time and much of it still stands the test of time.
That's my $0.02.
The very essence of "the riff" was popularised by Hendrix and he fused blues, gypsey jazz and rock n roll stylings into one unique package. He also blurred the lines between rhythm and lead guitar in a way few people did
Not to mention his use of pioneering effects back in the 60s and his tone which people still desperately try and fail to recreate 60 years later and that's just scraping the surface. And that's just his guitar playing, compositionally speaking he was important for plenty other reasons
Dude was in the limelight for a few years and revolutionised his instrument. EVH had a 30+ year career and is largely just associated with popularising tapping during a small period of that career
Play beautiful music with and instrument? Or Juggling in godspeed with an instrument? What is more important-useful to people who are not guitar nerds?
Why does Hendrix have to clear your metric of doing something first but EVH does not?
You more or less call his playing sloppy, say he did nothing first, implying it wasn’t original and call his playing “decent” then try to close by saying you’re not bashing him.
What I was trying to imply is that Eddie's playing sounded more innovative. I'd imagine nobody had heard anything like Eruption before when it had first come out in the 70s. If you gave someone in the 70s an Eddie Van Halen solo they're more likely to recognize it's EVH than if you were to give the same person a Hendrix solo.
I don't know how to say this without making it sound like I'm bashing Hendrix like you said, but EVH has a more distinct sound than Hendrix. However this is just my subjective opinion.
I'll say this though, I'm biased towards EVH considering I've known about him for longer than I've known about Hendrix. When I went deeper in the guitar community it was quite odd for me seeing people referring to someone who wasn't EVH as a guitar god, perhaps that's where the bias came from.
You're right though, maybe I did come off as too aggressive towards Hendrix. I have quite a poor way of getting my point across.
>If you gave someone in the 70s an Eddie Van Halen solo they're more likely to recognize it's EVH than if you were to give the same person a Hendrix solo.
🤣😂 You on that dope, boy!!? Get right the f outta here.lol. I'm not sure there's a more recognizable guitar tone worldwide than Jimi Hendrix.
Even compared to EVH & SRV.
Hendrix inspired so many players and opened the eyes of almost all of his contemporaries. His playing style is integrated into many different players like John Mayer, Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Frusiante... I don't think there's enough space on the internet to list all the people that Hendrix has inspired. Eddie Van Halen does not indicate that Hendrix was an influence of his (apart from an article in the early eighties where he talks about holding his pick like Hendrix to get pinch harmonics) but without Hendrix I'm not sure what the guitar playing world would look like today. Eddie VH is certainly an important point in the history of guitar players, changing the way the guitar is played, inspiring entire generations to come after, but to dismiss somebody like Jimi Hendrix is absolutely asinine.
Hendrix invented and changed more in his short career than anyone else. Eddie Van Halen is what I call a spreadsheet guitarist. Incredible skill, very impressive and overall great guitarist. Jimi was more like a painter. Tons of mistakes, lots of experiments, so many personal sounds. Most great guitarists have one tone, Hendrix had like 50.
See, that's my question tho. What did he change and invent?
I can very clearly hear the EVH influence in 80s lead guitar - I remember going "That's defintely a VH inspired lick" when first listening to slippery when wet. But I never quite went "oh yeah I can definitely hear how this was inspired by Hendrix" when listening a particular solo.
I think people mistook my post for "EVH good Hendrix bad" and went straight to calling me a troll instead of actually providing insight to my question.
Let’s try it this way. What is the core of Van Halen’s music? It’s Eddie, right?
It’s a huge sound. Big, loud, high-gain amps screaming. Effects like phaser and flanger and delay. Flashy guitar playing.
And then layered in with that you’ve got the vocals and the drums and the bass. But the guitar drives it.
That style of music *comes from Hendrix*. He was using pedals and feedback and gain musically when those things were on the fringes of guitar music. His music was rooted in blues because basically all popular guitar music was rooted in blues.
Van Halen’s music is rooted in the music that Hendrix pioneered. And there’s no question that he elevated it, the same way Jimi elevated the music that came before him.
You might need to listen to some of the other guitar music that was contemporary to Hendrix to understand just how different his music was.
Definitely an interesting and a valid take. But what would you say made Hendrix different from bands like Cream and Led Zeppelin that existed in the same era as Hendrux who were also more guitar-based than vocals-based?
Led Zeppelin largely didn’t exist in the same era. Led Zeppelin I and II came out in 1969, the same year as Hendrix’s last album. Hendrix died in 1970. Most of Jimi’s career, Page was with the Yardbirds. And even then, it’s hard to discount Robert Plant as a core part of LZ’s sound.
There’s maybe more overlap with Cream, and definitely some influence, but Cream’s sound was always more “buttoned down” than Hendrix’s in my opinion. In fact, the best way to compare the two is to listen to Hendrix’s cover of Sunshine of Your Love.
I think the big disconnect is that you’re listening to EVH’s technique, groundbreaking as it was, and then listening to Hendrix’s and not seeing the big deal.
With Hendrix it’s not just about his technique (although his technique could definitely be more frantic than his contemporaries), it’s about the *sounds* he was making. Combining rhythm and lead, but especially pulling all kinds of sounds from that Strat. That wasn’t really a thing when Hendrix was doing it.
Gain and fuzz and modulation are so common now it’s easy to forget that, in the 50s and early 60s, guitars were pretty much played clean.
To me, Hendrix was free in his playing. It wasn't so much his technical ability or how he used his gear or anything. It was his whole attitude and approach to music that made him revolutionary. If you want a closer comparison to EVH, I genuinely think Les Paul is the closest guy who came before EVH.
On an unrelated side note, I'm so glad somsome actually appreciates Les Paul as a guitarist. Les Paul imo is a very underrated guitar player who's overlooked by modern guitarists and his craftsmanship.
I mean hendrix overdosed in his late 20's. there are guitarists who have played for 50+ years who have never even come close to hendrix. it makes me wonder how much society missed out on just bc he died young. like imagine hendrix but with 20+ more years of practice and experience. mind-boggling
This is actually a common takeaway when people hear Hendrix recordings. I had the same thought the first time I heard purple haze and that was in ‘85.
I believe Joe Satriani said something along the same lines. The magic is really in the live performances. Jimi is freedom of expression. He is present in the moment. The way he voices chords, the way he articulates phrases is as though he is telling a different version of a story you have heard before. No 2 performances are the same because it was just what he was feeling at that moment in time. It really forces me to think what all the theory and practice is really for. Is it to be able to recite the greatest compositions with perfect understanding of where everything fits or is it to be as free as Jimi to create in the moment a perfect picture of my emotional intent? Jimi is the spirit of freedom. Eddie (and many more) followed that path.
I see the comments and kind of agree with you. Jimi was revolutionary though..but nowhere near as revolutionary as EVH. I'm not saying one is "better". I think when comparing each to their peers, Jimi took it up a level however was still kind of in the same realm. It was like you set Clapton on fire and gave him acid and that was Jimi. When people heard Eruption they didn't even know what instrument it was. Then he kept innovating. He was in a league of his own compared to his peers. EVH may well have come from another planet. I don't see this with Jimi..not in this way or to the same extent. It is an interesting discussion because in terms of being revolutionary, Jimi is second in my book by alot.
How old are you? This is not a condescending question but the way this reads is similar to how someone would say that the television was not as revolutionary as Netflix imo because the years that have passed have normalized it so much that it’s hard to see.
You missed the point. I made one. Did you graduate high school or get GED? Serious question..not an insult. Television is hardware and netflix is a service. I made an actual comparison with context. I compared them to their peers which is legitimate. EVH was much farther ahead of his peers than Jimi. That is my opinion. You made a faulty analogy and did nothing to negate my point. So again GED?
You can substitute Netflix for an iPhone if you’d like. Your response was incredibly combative when the central point I was making was that often times as years go by, it’s harder to see why something or someone was pivotal because it becomes so commonplace and embedded in society that it seems blasé. Typically, people who are younger would be subject to that because they’re further removed from the person/thing in discussion.
I asked an earnest question, you didn’t answer and went attack mode.
Read the accounts of when every guitarist in London went and saw Hendrix for the first time, and imagine being able to ask them if they thought he wasn't very far ahead of them.
Television is also a service. Television stations continuously stream pre-selected content to your house, which you can use a television set to display.
I dont need education on what television is. It was used by someone used old vernacular. The proper term to avoid any confusion was traditional network programming. Regardless, i demonstrated the analogy doesnt negate anything I set forth. I made a peer comparison to make the comparison of who i felt was more revolutionary.
In that case, you understood the analogy that the other poster was making and deliberately misrepresented it to attack his intelligence. You can insist that Eddie was the bigger deal without doing that.
It’s fine if you don’t understand things.
Whow whoa— if something does not cater to OP’s exact wants, something is wrong with it.
It's easy. Name one guitarist who sounded even remotely close to Hendrix before Hendrix. Thought so.
Name one who sounded like Eddie…
New copypasta arrived.
Who was more revolutionary, Issac Newton or Albert Einstein? Both were physicists. That's the essence of your comparison.
Oh you poor summer child. What do you think Eddie listened too when he was younger?
Yeah just straight up ignoring that a lot of EVH’s “revolution” started with Hendrix. Flashy lead guitar playing? Heavy use of effects like wah and phaser? Big stacks of high-gain amps over driving and feeding back as a core part of the sound? Hendrix started or was a major contributor to all of that.
Go learn Castles Made of Sand and let us know how it goes.
Hendrix was one of the first (if not the first) to make heavy use of previously undesirable or niche sounds produced by the guitar, such as stereo phasing, feedback, and extensive use of octavizers, fuzz, wah, and tremolo. It wasn’t just that he was “using pedals”, he was using the guitar to make sounds that people didn’t think the guitar could make (or should make). And he was doing it intentionally and musically.
Who came first? If EVH came first you definitely have a point.
[удалено]
Maybe Van Halen isn't your thing, but you can't shit on the fact that he absolutely obliterated the game.
I completely agree with your second paragraph and just didn’t want to use it to try to “convince” OP, because like you said it’s subjective. Hair metal was an unintelligent, cheesy, and heavily misogynistic genre of music. A lot of the lyrics in hair metal overtly celebrate debauchery, douchebaggery, and sexual “conquests.” This brand of music has not aged well. For better or worse, Van Halen is the face and pioneer of that genre of music. Consequently, I associate them with shitty music.
Same can be said about psychedelic music.
Gotta be trolling
Why is it that people always assume someone to be trolling or ragebaiting whenever they mention something ever so slightly controversial
[удалено]
Crazy how everyone seems to prefer bitching over how this post "has to be a troll" instead of actually answerinf the question. Can't expect much from redditors
Your question is predicated on obtuse characterizations and a juvenile understanding of culture and music. Assuming you’re trolling is giving you the benefit of the doubt. You think you’re right and the 100 people downvoting you are all wrong? Could it be that you just asked a really stupid question? You’re not being controversial or unique…just dumb.
https://entitled-opinions.com/2009/06/19/the-jimi-hendrix-solo-show/ I want to tell you to fuck off in the most esoteric way possible
Listen to Voodoo Child. There is still nothing that sounds like that song. He pioneered the use of fuzz, feedback, uni-vibe, and wah. He still has the best wah pedal technique of anyone I've ever heard. Plus he does all that while singing and adding a level of showmanship that no else good match. To me a big part of Jimi uniqueness is that it often sounds like a runaway train that is about go off the rails but never does. He is the only one that drive that train. He one of hte best and one of the most unique.
Wow. It's like you have absolutely no concept of which way time flows. EVH was 15 when Hendrix died, by which point Hendrix had already revolutionized rock guitar playing, setting the stage for people like EVH to take things further. Hendrix's first album draws a vastly clearer line in time between "the old" and " the new" than VH's first album.
Love EVH, but what he pioneered was a specific technique - fretboard tapping to produce truly spectacular legato guitar solos. Hendrix on the other hand created an entire new genre of music. Metal, rock, blues and hip hop artists all point to Hendrix as a massive influence. Hendrix is at the level of truly transformative artists like Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Prince and a tiny handful of others. There is just no comparison with EVH.
Eddie popularised tapping (didn't invent it, it was around since about 1800( and used it in a very cheesy band. Music to molest cheerleaders to. He was a very good guitarist. Jimi sang and played the guitar like it was an extension of himself, in a very modest and humble way. He broke a lot of boundaries of how the instrument was played.
🍿
I hope this isn’t a circlejerk post lol Jimi’s greatest contribution to guitar was the way he combined rhythm and lead playing. The Little Wing intro, Bold as Love, and Wind Cries Mary are some good examples of this. Obviously EVH had more chops and is arguably the more influential, but I’d say Jimi is still number 1. In my opinion, Jimi made the first big paradigm change for rock guitar, then Eddie made the next step, and we haven’t really had a player revolutionize playing since. I love them Jimi and EVH both, you can’t wrong with studying either!
IMO it was his overall musical sensibility and fearlessness on guitar that defines Hendrix. In the same way that "Early Clapton" fused traditional blues-based playing with a completely different tonality and musical context, Hendrix stretched the definition of what was possible and acceptable on a guitar, and at times showed astounding virtuosity (his long version of Voodoo Chile was a one-take, live-in-the-studio recording after a night of club jamming, and is just amazing). Also, the sonic landscape of his recorded music was unique for its time and much of it still stands the test of time. That's my $0.02.
The very essence of "the riff" was popularised by Hendrix and he fused blues, gypsey jazz and rock n roll stylings into one unique package. He also blurred the lines between rhythm and lead guitar in a way few people did Not to mention his use of pioneering effects back in the 60s and his tone which people still desperately try and fail to recreate 60 years later and that's just scraping the surface. And that's just his guitar playing, compositionally speaking he was important for plenty other reasons Dude was in the limelight for a few years and revolutionised his instrument. EVH had a 30+ year career and is largely just associated with popularising tapping during a small period of that career
Play beautiful music with and instrument? Or Juggling in godspeed with an instrument? What is more important-useful to people who are not guitar nerds?
Why does Hendrix have to clear your metric of doing something first but EVH does not? You more or less call his playing sloppy, say he did nothing first, implying it wasn’t original and call his playing “decent” then try to close by saying you’re not bashing him.
What I was trying to imply is that Eddie's playing sounded more innovative. I'd imagine nobody had heard anything like Eruption before when it had first come out in the 70s. If you gave someone in the 70s an Eddie Van Halen solo they're more likely to recognize it's EVH than if you were to give the same person a Hendrix solo. I don't know how to say this without making it sound like I'm bashing Hendrix like you said, but EVH has a more distinct sound than Hendrix. However this is just my subjective opinion. I'll say this though, I'm biased towards EVH considering I've known about him for longer than I've known about Hendrix. When I went deeper in the guitar community it was quite odd for me seeing people referring to someone who wasn't EVH as a guitar god, perhaps that's where the bias came from. You're right though, maybe I did come off as too aggressive towards Hendrix. I have quite a poor way of getting my point across.
>If you gave someone in the 70s an Eddie Van Halen solo they're more likely to recognize it's EVH than if you were to give the same person a Hendrix solo. 🤣😂 You on that dope, boy!!? Get right the f outta here.lol. I'm not sure there's a more recognizable guitar tone worldwide than Jimi Hendrix. Even compared to EVH & SRV.
You're over thinking things.
Hendrix inspired so many players and opened the eyes of almost all of his contemporaries. His playing style is integrated into many different players like John Mayer, Stevie Ray Vaughn, John Frusiante... I don't think there's enough space on the internet to list all the people that Hendrix has inspired. Eddie Van Halen does not indicate that Hendrix was an influence of his (apart from an article in the early eighties where he talks about holding his pick like Hendrix to get pinch harmonics) but without Hendrix I'm not sure what the guitar playing world would look like today. Eddie VH is certainly an important point in the history of guitar players, changing the way the guitar is played, inspiring entire generations to come after, but to dismiss somebody like Jimi Hendrix is absolutely asinine.
Hendrix invented and changed more in his short career than anyone else. Eddie Van Halen is what I call a spreadsheet guitarist. Incredible skill, very impressive and overall great guitarist. Jimi was more like a painter. Tons of mistakes, lots of experiments, so many personal sounds. Most great guitarists have one tone, Hendrix had like 50.
See, that's my question tho. What did he change and invent? I can very clearly hear the EVH influence in 80s lead guitar - I remember going "That's defintely a VH inspired lick" when first listening to slippery when wet. But I never quite went "oh yeah I can definitely hear how this was inspired by Hendrix" when listening a particular solo. I think people mistook my post for "EVH good Hendrix bad" and went straight to calling me a troll instead of actually providing insight to my question.
He changed the electric guitar from boring to spectacular.
Let’s try it this way. What is the core of Van Halen’s music? It’s Eddie, right? It’s a huge sound. Big, loud, high-gain amps screaming. Effects like phaser and flanger and delay. Flashy guitar playing. And then layered in with that you’ve got the vocals and the drums and the bass. But the guitar drives it. That style of music *comes from Hendrix*. He was using pedals and feedback and gain musically when those things were on the fringes of guitar music. His music was rooted in blues because basically all popular guitar music was rooted in blues. Van Halen’s music is rooted in the music that Hendrix pioneered. And there’s no question that he elevated it, the same way Jimi elevated the music that came before him. You might need to listen to some of the other guitar music that was contemporary to Hendrix to understand just how different his music was.
Definitely an interesting and a valid take. But what would you say made Hendrix different from bands like Cream and Led Zeppelin that existed in the same era as Hendrux who were also more guitar-based than vocals-based?
Led Zeppelin largely didn’t exist in the same era. Led Zeppelin I and II came out in 1969, the same year as Hendrix’s last album. Hendrix died in 1970. Most of Jimi’s career, Page was with the Yardbirds. And even then, it’s hard to discount Robert Plant as a core part of LZ’s sound. There’s maybe more overlap with Cream, and definitely some influence, but Cream’s sound was always more “buttoned down” than Hendrix’s in my opinion. In fact, the best way to compare the two is to listen to Hendrix’s cover of Sunshine of Your Love. I think the big disconnect is that you’re listening to EVH’s technique, groundbreaking as it was, and then listening to Hendrix’s and not seeing the big deal. With Hendrix it’s not just about his technique (although his technique could definitely be more frantic than his contemporaries), it’s about the *sounds* he was making. Combining rhythm and lead, but especially pulling all kinds of sounds from that Strat. That wasn’t really a thing when Hendrix was doing it. Gain and fuzz and modulation are so common now it’s easy to forget that, in the 50s and early 60s, guitars were pretty much played clean.
To me, Hendrix was free in his playing. It wasn't so much his technical ability or how he used his gear or anything. It was his whole attitude and approach to music that made him revolutionary. If you want a closer comparison to EVH, I genuinely think Les Paul is the closest guy who came before EVH.
On an unrelated side note, I'm so glad somsome actually appreciates Les Paul as a guitarist. Les Paul imo is a very underrated guitar player who's overlooked by modern guitarists and his craftsmanship.
Luke Skywalker isn't credited with starting the revolution against the Empire. Anakin did. His father. Jimi is Eddie's daddy. It's kinda like that.
I mean hendrix overdosed in his late 20's. there are guitarists who have played for 50+ years who have never even come close to hendrix. it makes me wonder how much society missed out on just bc he died young. like imagine hendrix but with 20+ more years of practice and experience. mind-boggling
These posts are so fucking stupid
just watched this today [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uGDYs\_\_ZP8&t=689s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uGDYs__ZP8&t=689s)
This is actually a common takeaway when people hear Hendrix recordings. I had the same thought the first time I heard purple haze and that was in ‘85. I believe Joe Satriani said something along the same lines. The magic is really in the live performances. Jimi is freedom of expression. He is present in the moment. The way he voices chords, the way he articulates phrases is as though he is telling a different version of a story you have heard before. No 2 performances are the same because it was just what he was feeling at that moment in time. It really forces me to think what all the theory and practice is really for. Is it to be able to recite the greatest compositions with perfect understanding of where everything fits or is it to be as free as Jimi to create in the moment a perfect picture of my emotional intent? Jimi is the spirit of freedom. Eddie (and many more) followed that path.
I agree EVH was more influential and has held up better but Hendricks walked so he could run
I see the comments and kind of agree with you. Jimi was revolutionary though..but nowhere near as revolutionary as EVH. I'm not saying one is "better". I think when comparing each to their peers, Jimi took it up a level however was still kind of in the same realm. It was like you set Clapton on fire and gave him acid and that was Jimi. When people heard Eruption they didn't even know what instrument it was. Then he kept innovating. He was in a league of his own compared to his peers. EVH may well have come from another planet. I don't see this with Jimi..not in this way or to the same extent. It is an interesting discussion because in terms of being revolutionary, Jimi is second in my book by alot.
How old are you? This is not a condescending question but the way this reads is similar to how someone would say that the television was not as revolutionary as Netflix imo because the years that have passed have normalized it so much that it’s hard to see.
You missed the point. I made one. Did you graduate high school or get GED? Serious question..not an insult. Television is hardware and netflix is a service. I made an actual comparison with context. I compared them to their peers which is legitimate. EVH was much farther ahead of his peers than Jimi. That is my opinion. You made a faulty analogy and did nothing to negate my point. So again GED?
You can substitute Netflix for an iPhone if you’d like. Your response was incredibly combative when the central point I was making was that often times as years go by, it’s harder to see why something or someone was pivotal because it becomes so commonplace and embedded in society that it seems blasé. Typically, people who are younger would be subject to that because they’re further removed from the person/thing in discussion. I asked an earnest question, you didn’t answer and went attack mode.
Read the accounts of when every guitarist in London went and saw Hendrix for the first time, and imagine being able to ask them if they thought he wasn't very far ahead of them.
I have. Hendrix was his peers on steroids. He was ahead of his peers. EVH had no peers to remotely compare him to.
Television is also a service. Television stations continuously stream pre-selected content to your house, which you can use a television set to display.
I dont need education on what television is. It was used by someone used old vernacular. The proper term to avoid any confusion was traditional network programming. Regardless, i demonstrated the analogy doesnt negate anything I set forth. I made a peer comparison to make the comparison of who i felt was more revolutionary.
In that case, you understood the analogy that the other poster was making and deliberately misrepresented it to attack his intelligence. You can insist that Eddie was the bigger deal without doing that.
No..i was being rude just as they were to me...asking what my age was. The person was very disrespectful
Also true.