>
>
>Tracy_Barber@frontiernet.net wrote:

>> On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 05:46:59 -0600, Dale Houstman skypoint.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>

>>>
>>>Tracy_Barber@frontiernet.net wrote:
>>>

>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:54:14 -0600, Dale Houstman skypoint.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>Tracy_Barber@frontiernet.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:25:59 -0600, Dale Houstman skypoint.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>There's no argument that Jimi somewhat overpowered the other two,
>>>>>>>although I think their playing is fine. And I don't really think it's
>>>>>>>much of a "problem" - the records sound good to me. I only raised Jimi
>>>>>>>because he is a guitar virtuoso (full of complexities), and yet also
>>>>>>>considered psychedelic. Thus supporting the idea that psychedelia is not
>>>>>>>a very easily qualified thing in itself. Donovan was also considered a
>>>>>>>psychedelic folk artist, although there is neither a prodigious amount
>>>>>>>of studio trickery, or most of what routinely is identified with the
>>>>>>>sonic part of the term. He's just "twee" with a lot of fairy dust; which
>>>>>>>is also an aspect of psychedelia.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mitch Mitchell was no slouch and many will state that. His drumming
>>>>>>was quite good, in the scheme of things.

>>>>>
>>>>>I always thought so. But he never really had much hope of being noticed
>>>>>in the cosmis wash of Jimi's guitar.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>>>Hendrix was into making all types of sounds and stereo panning,
>>>>>>overdubs and so forth for the sake of progression, not psychedelia -
>>>>>>although at the time, one may "argue" about it. Listen to "1983..."
>>>>>>on Electric Ladyland - almost reaches prog status. Just because there
>>>>>>weren't any keyboards present doesn't mean it's not progressive.

>>>>>
>>>>>I know he was really quite the lad for studio work. But I wouldn't say
>>>>>with any certainty that "1983..." is any more "prog" than "psyche": it's
>>>>>cosmic/mermaid theme is as much a matter of the psychedelic themes as
>>>>>progressive ones, if any distinction can reasonably be made. I assume
>>>>>that Jimi didn't bother to put a label on it all...

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, he did. He composed it, a la classical music, to some
>>>>extent. That is, of course, the impression given by the extensive
>>>>liner notes with the CD.
>>>>
>>>>I'd say it leaned more towards prog, because prog wasn't a household
>>>>name back then. Most weird sounding stuff was simply shoved into
>>>>psych as a misnomer at times.
>>>>

>>>
>>>Well - just because Jimi didn't label it "psychedelic" doesn't mean it
>>>isn't: he didn't label it "progressive" either, so that argument would
>>>eliminate both sides of the discussion. It's obviously a constructed
>>>piece - as i've already noted - but since nothing in my understanding of
>>>what may or not be "psychedelic" restricts construction/composition from
>>>beinf also "psychedelic" that doesn't clarify what is basically an
>>>unclarifiable debate either. It's cosmic and mystical aspects - plus its
>>>sonic experimentation - suffice - for me - to make it a viable
>>>psychedelic experience...
>>>
>>>

>>>>The song has prog movements, but also has rock / floaty stuff like
>>>>King Crimson. Anyway, tomato, tomahto, yes?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>Hendrix was "into" sounds. I simply love the speed and virtuosity of
>>>>>>"Jam Back At The House" on Woodstock II. One could almost call it
>>>>>>speed metal or heavy metal before the term was truly coined. Sheesh...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Or, the beauty of Little Wing. Or the use of wah-wah on "Voodoo Child
>>>>>>- Slight Return". One could also include the jam Voodoo Chile on
>>>>>>Electric Ladyland... It wasn't all "Hey, Joe", "Wild Thing" or any
>>>>>>Dylan take-offs, although they moved him more into some mainstream
>>>>>>than straight blues / rock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He was playing heavy stuff when others were playing nursery rhymes and
>>>>>>fairy tales - light and fluffy stuff for the "love child" set.

>>>>>
>>>>>Hey! Keep your hands off my dandelion hat!

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Aha! The psych side is showing. Or is that a Freudian slip?

>>>
>>>No - I spilled some ego on my Freudian slip, so today I'm wearing my
>>>teddy, boy...

>>
>>
>> hehehehehehehe...

>
>Amused by my trivial word-play, or titillated by the picture it summons?
>One can only wonder...