dang dude, i was just stoned and trying to be impartial with my assessment of the band last night

while i never did get into their music, i'll acknowledge that they had chops. on the other hand satchmo's quote strikes me more as something said by an immature musician as opposed to an out of context emotional release.

they DID have skills, but technical prowess doesn't impress women. if there are no women at the show there is no chance of getting laid after the show and where the bulk of hair metal was about partying and getting laid... besides it's the crowd that dictates the success of a band, the quality of their music, and the awesomeness of their songs. challenging another band to a fight over technical chops is laughable beyond words. kip winger might be a decent bass player but he does NOT come across as anything resembling a musician (or an actual adult) in that quote.

while hendrix might not have been able to shred like reb - who cares. people had to invent new expressions to describe what they heard when hendrix played guitar, he didn't dictate to people what he did, he just played his music. mr. winger on the other hand is all about name dropping other people/groups to inflate his profile. if he would have just focused on playing good music instead of worrying about being number 1 in every category possible they might have a bit more legacy than a god awful take on a hendrix classic and stewart.

and the geeky guy from B&B is totally the kind of kid who would have been into winger. i've never met anyone who got off on the technical virtuosity of the guitar who wasn't a giant freaking nerd during their teens.

i'd also say that having their debut release at the peak of the style (prior to the inevitable decline) would have them starting up on the tail end of things. unlike the big bands of the style def leppard, motley crue, bon jovi, poison, etc. who were all established for the better part of a decade if not longer by that point.

you're also right that winger do not sound like hacks who just picked up their instruments yesterday. nirvana sounded like hacks who just picked up their instruments yesterday, but i'd still rather listen to them than winger.

Until this day I was totally unaware of the horror that was Winger's version of 'Purple Haze'. The shock of it may well stay with me for the rest of my days.


Yep - it shows.


This is one of those statements you just have to keep looking at over and over again. There must be a hint of irony there, surely?


T-R, I've long suspected it, but you and I really do have a totally different understanding of what music is about.

Listen to the way Hendrix plays on 'Machine Gun' here. As you're watching, he is quite literally reinventing the instrument.

He opens his solo with one note that means so much more than the infinity of soulless gnat-notes provided by any widdly Winger-style guitarist. Listen to how many ways he simulates the sound of war with his guitar.

Hendrix moved electric guitar playing on to a degree that no-one had done since Charlie Christian. It really is as simple as that.

There cannot really be any serious comparison here, surely?

New Year's Eve/Day 1970....Filmore East....imagine if you will, a lad 4 months away from turning 7 witnessing



DA F***ING MAN drop deep universal knowledge. One of three such times this young lad was in the presence.


Seeing James Patrick Page (who of course, is DA MAN in his own right) the year before made the lad want to play the guitar....seeing Johnny Allen Hendrix showed the lad he better consider something else, altogether. The rest is history.




P.S. I would just to give a shout out to my Black Sheep of an Aunt who took the lad to such things and who will be having her third Brain Surgery on Monday.



YO!

Kip Winger challenging Metallica for a fight as well as freaking out over a cartoon show is ,as I have stated myself before, unprofessional and immature. It's Axl Rose level behaviour. We agree on that. Question: What does this have to do with their music in general or their version of Purple Haze in particular? Answer: Nothing. Satchmo just brought it up to bash Winger, fully aware that more bashing by others would follow. Just how mature is that?

The crowd/consumers decide the level of success, true. Winger hit platinum several times, but it was not on the same level as Leppard, Jovi, Poison, GnR or Crüe. And as I've also said before, they weren't too original either. They simply didn't stand out enough from the rest of the scene, maybe it had to do with them being only a financial project.

I never put Hendrix down in any way. While it's a fact that he couldn't play most Winger solos, neither could Beach play Hendrix'. The only (famous) guitarists I know of playing Hendrix' material halfway decent are Lenny Kravitz (spelling?) and maybe Stevie Ray Vaughan. I never put Beach on Hedrix' legacy-level, either. It was Satchmo who came up with the "Hendrix vs Winger"-thing in the form of a contest. Since when is playing a cover version a musical contest? Unless of course you're out for bashing someone. Mature behaviour, anyone?

I'm into Winger. Not that much, I mostly like only their singles. I rather listen to White Lion BTW. I'm not a geek. But even if I was, would that make any difference? Will I get my own cartoon character now, too?

Tail end or not, I guess that is subject to interpretation. Winger were around long enough to make two albums and make a living out of it, even to this day. From my point of view bands like Slaughter, Steelheart or Firehouse (who all realeased their debuts in the 90s) arrived at the tail end of the movement.

Good that we agree that they're not "hacks who just learned to play their instruments just the other day". But anything else would've surprised me. Personally, I also prefer Poison over Winger. Poison BTW really do qualify for being "hacks who etc". Fine with me, Poison rock.

You were there, Satchmo? Wow - tell us more! How many sets did you see that night at the Fillmore?


T-R: I take your point about mature behaviour, but the whole thread seems to be geared towards a straight comparison between Winger and Hendrix, and we can agree that that's pretty laughable, I hope.

I also think you overestimate Lenny Kravitz' guitar playing abilities by several light years, but that's another issue.

Even though it's obvious you read my comments, I'm not sure you understood them. I'm not a native English speaker, and I can only guess how much is lost in translation, but I'll try to make myself a bit clearer this time:

1)
Where exactly does it show that they were a band formed for financial reasons? Hadn't I mentioned that you probably wouldn't even know. It was only a little info on the sideline, yet you use it to warrant your bashing. Any explaination, Mr Gibson?

2)
Sorry, no intended irony here. I'm not a musician; all I can tell you is that I've read that Reb Beach was originally a jazz player, just as Rod Morgenstein who used to play in Dixie Dregs (spelling?). And that I was told by three very impressive guitarists (ex-RMers BTW) that Winger were, from a technical perspective, far superior to most rockbands. You might want to check that yourself.

3)
I don't know what music is or should be about to you, and actually I can care less. Good music to me is music I enjoy listening to. Nothing else. It's secondary at best whether it's technically impressive or not, and I don't care much if it was a cruicial step in musical evolution or what genre it is. What's it all worth if you don't like listening to it? Correct, it's a waste of time.
BTW that we have different musical tastes was obvous to me since the first time I saw your avatar. And it really took you that long to figure that out?

4)
I haven't watched the video, I'm sure it's cool though. At least if it's Ladyland-era Hendrix. Yes, I happen to like some Hendrix. I stated that before already. So what? Can't I like both Hendrix AND Winger? I don't see your point in comparing the two. Music isn't a contest, to me anyway. But since you present it this way I guess you're a pretty competative guy, or at least a bit sensitive when it comes to Hendrix.
Quote: "...infinity of soulless gnat-notes provided by any widdly Winger-style guitarist..." That was just immature if not outright stupid. Sorry. I've said before a hundred times, 80s soloing and Hendrix are very different. And again, we're not in a contest here. I never bashed Hedrix nor his playing. So what's the big deal? Me, I love 80s guitar solos, I love George Lynch, John Norum and Steve Stevens. Not to mention Van Halen. And many others. And even better, I can easily tell them apart, even though I'm not a musician myself. Each of them is unique and they have their very own style and sound. Yet, as I've also mentioned, I don't like Reb Beach's soloing (remember, that's the guy from Winger in case you forgot). Why? IMO he's shredding the songs to death. It really comes over a bit pointless IMO. Some like that, but it's just not my bag. BTW I'm not a fan of Paul Gilbert in Racer X either, it's even more radical most of the time. However there's people who can listen to those guys for days. Different people, different taste.

5)
I'm aware of Hendrix' influence on electric guitar playing. So what? The point is? Others should not be playing guitar? I've addressed this countless times by now in this post alone. Read above.
No idea who Charlie Christian is. If you care for more than just name-dropping you could go ahead and elaborate or at least recommend a few songs. Otherwise save it.

6)
Agreed, there cannot be a serious competition here. In fact, there cannot be ANY competition. Of the two of us I'm not the one who suggested there might be. You should really reconsider your mindset about this entire thing. If you just flat out hate Winger, then why don't you just say so? No problem with me. It really is as simple as that.

Hi there T-R:

It looks like we're largely in agreement, despite the fact that we like very different things in music for the most part. There's nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying there is. Sorry if I sounded too hostile earlier, but bad music does have a very strong effect on me.


The fact that they're an ultra-commercial rock band shows they're far more interested in money than in music. That much would have been obvious even if you hadn't mentioned it.


I am a musician, and, like you, I rely on the judgment of my own ears. The way I hear it, they suck.


Agreed, except for the part about "a crucial step in musical evolution". It could be a musician thing.


Of course, it's very obvious we have different tastes. In fact, there's something very admirable about your constant defence of deeply unfashionable and widely reviled music. I mean it: you like what you like and you're proud of it - and that's clearly a good thing.



It's later than that, with the Band of Gypsys. Like Satchmo said, New Year's Eve / Day 1970. Check it out.

Of course you can.


I suppose you could say that. I'm just going with the flow of the thread, though. Judging one thing against another.

Don't underestimate the shock I had when I first heard the Winger version. It was a truly horrible experience, which may account for some of my hostility.



Not really - you even say pretty much the same thing here:


Sorry, I assumed you would have heard of him. He's the only person whose influence on electric guitar playing could be said to be bigger than Hendrix's.

Have a listen to his recordings with Benny Goodman: 'Honeysuckle Rose' and 'Solo Flight' are two blinding tracks that anyone remotely interested in electric guitar playing should know. Here's 'Solo Flight' - one of the very first electric guitar solos.


'Comparison' was the word I used. Other than that, like I said, I'm just responding to the premise of the thread.


I assumed that would have been clear from my post. In any case, just for the record:

I hate, loathe, abominate and despise Winger.

But that doesn't mean I have anything but an appropriate level of respect for you. I'm not here for a fight.

I'm interested to discuss things with you because you have such unusual taste in music. I've never met anyone who likes the kind of stuff you do, and I'm curious to find out what you see in people like Poison or Nik Kershaw and the rest.

These posts are getting a bit long...

First it's nice to know that we agree on most of this argument. And to prevent any further misunderstandings, Hendrix will outlast and/or eclipse Winger in terms of legacy and musical influence. Not that this was ever argued here.
However, as far as I know the shredder-guitarist scene is still quite stable at a certain level and most of those guys don't have Jimi among their top favs, even though they're quite good musicians themselves.

I'll work my way from top to bottom of your last post:

1)
Musically there is no telling Winger were/are a financially calculated act. If one could tell that just by listening to them then just about any other band from that era would also be. And even though there were other bands with similar motivations, most of them were primarily into it for the music. This can be seen in the fact that many of them continued their careers during the grunge era, despite getting bashed from the media, losing their major deals and having to play bars when they used to play arenas two years earlier.

2)
"Suck" is a rather wide ranging description. They sure don't suck on the technical level. Panbient confirmed that. If that's not sufficient for you then you might want to try Winger's solos in "Seventeen". They're not the best when it comes to channel emotions into music or catch the listener with anything else than technique, if that's what you meant.

3)
Winger's version a shock? Picture this, I thought it was an original! Heard the actual original years later on the movie "Ford Fairlane Rock n' Roll Detective". THAT was a shocker, hehe. In a positive way though. I was like, "Hey wait! So Hendrix did this in the first place?!?". Excuse me while I kiss the sky!

4)
Your line "...widdly Winger-style guitarist" was an intentional putdown of all guitarists of that scene, while you (my guess) haven't even heard most of them. It was a generalisation that made no sense. The fact that I particularly don't like Reb Beach's soloing is a whole different story.



I have respect for you, too. Like for many others here, despite their strange musical preferences, hehe. And I never felt insulted on this thread, either. Otherwise I'd have just stopped responding. My involvement only proves my interest in the topic and the other users. Besides, these long posts require far more dedication and attention than my usual one-liners.
I will check out the Hendrix clip sometime, and Charlie Christian is on my to-do list now, too. Only they'll have to wait until it's their turn.


As far as Poison go, they're a party band. IMO no other rock-genre delivers party feeling like 80s glam, and out of those Poison are easliy in the top5. That's a reason why I don't listen to Winger that often, too many ballads and too little fun.
Nik Kershaw is a Miami Vice thing. Cruising through a summer night, mousse in the hair, mirrored shades, mint coloured jacket, purple poloshirt, white pants. And Nik Kershaw on the radio. *singin* "Wouldn't it be good...". No other genre than 80s pop/New Wave has this polished elegance.

I agree - these posts are getting too long. I'll try to be brief.

On the "widdly" issue: yes, that is a generalisation, but to be fair I have heard most of the players of that persuasion from the 80s to now. As I'm listening to 95% of them, I get no sense of musicality coming through the blur of notes. It's rare to find someone like, say, Joe Satriani who can play as fast as almost anyone and yet still play soulfully. That's the point I was getting at.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Although we don't agree on many things to do with music, I can see you're no fool, so I'll be sure to check out your posts in future. It's good to hear how things sound to someone on the other side of the fence.

Btw, enjoy Charlie Christian. He'll knock your socks off!

it agree its horrible cover too. the thread exists to find out why team rancho thinks its better than original and to find out what other people think.