#81 ·
Hendrix is just one icon in a long line of guitarists who left their mark and pushed music forward, but it’s pretty narrow-minded to think the entire world revolves around him. He learned from legends like Lightning Hopkins and that whole era of trailblazers, much like how Satriani and Vai made their own massive impact in their respective times. These are all essential figures in the history of the guitar and rock music. It feels incredibly misguided—and honestly, very subjective—when someone picks just one of these players and claims everything orbits them. I often hear people here in the States acting like it's all about Hendrix, and frankly, it's exhausting to listen to those kinds of exaggerations. In my view, someone like Stefanovski would outplay Hendrix in jazz or ethnic styles, just as Satriani would surpass him in pure technical precision. Hendrix was a giant of his era and a master of rock and blues, but he isn't the same kind of player as Stefanovski or Satriani, nor are they the same as him. And we can't forget names like Santana, Jeff Beck, Clapton, or R. M. Točak... not to mention the countless unknown musicians who operate at that same elite level. Hendrix is an indispensable piece of the puzzle, but he certainly isn't the entire picture of the rock or guitar world. I actually find myself wondering how Hendrix would have approached flamenco if he had played like Paco de Lucia. Treating Hendrix like a superhuman is just too primitive. It’s similar to how people tried to elevate Einstein; just because he mastered physics doesn't mean he was a master of painting, music, poetry, or sculpture. We should be reasonable rather than turning musicians into untouchable gods and living in such unreality. People were fascinated by Hendrix back then because what he did was unprecedented. If you stripped away the myth and he started touring today without that historical context, his music might not even capture anyone's interest. That is simply the reality of things.
