Are you prepared to buy your son a puffy shirt and bell-bottoms too?

Yes!

This story made me all warm and fuzzy.

Mod, call me in if you think I can be of any help to the boy.

You'll be much more help than I ever will be in his training, Sat! I'll keep you posted. You get him to that point of explosive, effortless soloing, and then I'll reel him in and see that he and his buds keep the songs in the 3:30 range.

The Guitar Hero and Rock Band games really do need to take it to another level on the next go around and put out some kind of controller technology that attaches to your face so you get points (or lose them) for proper guitar-face technique. Keeping that dour Clapton Face for any of his songs would be a real challenge.

I think I’d like to mount a case for an upgrade on Hendrix-the-vocalist someday, but I’m not sure if I’d be alone on that one.

I think you'd find backing on the upgrade request for Hendrix as a vocalist. There might be an even split among Townspeople on that issue. Feel free to submit the necessary paperwork for that discussion to take place!

You'd get some backing from me, alexmagic. Hendrix is hardly a great vocalist in any conventional sense, but his singing has character; he always sounds exactly like himself and is never generic.

I just watched this weekend Rainbow Bridge, a film that features Hendrix playing for the cast and crew in Hawaii.

Hendrix was always "on," unlike some of the other guitar greats who routinely gave subpar performances. And when you watch up close, you can see he was doing some really interesting chord voicings and fills that were just as interesting, if not moreso, than his solos.

I am a great big fan of Hendrix' vocals. Many of my favorite singers started out doing something else, usually playing piano (Nat Cole, Blossom Dearie, Nina Simone, Bob Dorough, &c.) and othercombos, like Joe Walsh, Chet Baker, Mo Tucker (!?.) They weren't always focussed on the diva art, which dements you from the get go, in many cases.

There is a very sweet letter from Hendrix to his dad, apparently referring to a criticism his dad had made of his singing. Jimi says, basically, "I know it isn't very good, but that's the way people are singing these days." Something like that. Pince nez?

That thing about always sounding like himself can't be overvalued. That alone makes Willie Nelson a hero of mine. No recording or performance makes him cooler than his dweeby accent and nasal voice. He avoids a multitude of sins, decade after decade.

Good points, general. I think too that Randy Newman gets major cred for sounding like himself.

I always got a kick out of WB's early ad for Newman: "Once you get used to his voice, his songs are really something."

Lovely sentiments, General, and valid points - sincerely - but could it be argued that Anson Williams sang like himself and was therefore a great vocalist?

Does this letter Jimi wrote to his dad support or contradict your thinking that he was singing like himself? I read what you half remembered him saying as an admission that he was "doing what all the cool kids are doing."

I don't think Hendrix "sucks" as a vocalist, but I often find his tone lacking, and his phrasing is one dimensional. If he were singing for some drmi-enlightened garage band like Love I wouldn't single his voice out, but the contrast between his voice and his guitar playing/the fluid arrangements of the band sometimes leave me wanting more. It's those tripped out, improvisational numbers where I usually wish he had more going for him as a vocalist. Again: I'm not saying he sucks, just that I fail to find him anything more than a serviceable vocalist.

Mr. Mod interprets:
I read what you half remembered him saying as an admission that he was "doing what all the cool kids are doing."
I disagree:
I read it as him saying, "Now, everybody just sings like they sing. There's no more Dick Haymes or Vaughn Monroe." (This is pre-Roxy Music!) That just singing sounding like you do is valid in a way it wasn't in dad's day.
I more was thinking of the humility factor. He was self-effacing in private, and seemed to have an accurate assessment of how he sounded.
Re: Anson Williams: He wasn't bad because he sounded like him, but sounding like him allowed a hideously clear view of him and his home-grown genuine horrifictude. Here's an exchange from Buffy the Vampire Slayer I found funny and illuminating of this venn-diagram:

Q: Does this sweater make me look fat?

A: The fact that you're fat makes you look fat. That sweater makes you look purple.

I think Hendrix' vocals on the ballads is especially musical. Obviously Little Wing, but he hit his stride on Electric Ladyland, with Rainy Day and so on. Also the later, "Waterfall and "Angel." Brilliant, to me. You couldn't make it more singery withut taking something away.

Mr. Mod advocates for Satan:
could it be argued that Anson Williams sang like himself and was therefore a great vocalist?

I clarify:
No one parameter makes someone good or bad, but rather, all the singers I mention would have suffered from a more worked-on vocal style, or by having the diva-gene in any greater supply. Would even Anson Williams be worse if he sounded like someone else? Good heavens. That's one of those angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin questions for monks to contemplate.

Also, whereas Randy Newman is always unmistakable, I always feel like he's putting that whole voice on. Like Mick Jagger, his vowels are worlds away from his speaking voice. He seems, to me, to have a "singing character" which, though consistent, is not the sound of Randy Newman himself.

Yes, General, we agree on the ballads - and I think he's a fine garage-rock shouter on songs like "Fire" and "Stone Free".

I also agree with what you say regarding Anson Williams' sweater, but I thought it was only fair to throw out my question.

I do disagree with your interpretation of that letter to Al Hendrix. It's not like rock 'n roll had already disregarded the role of strong vocalists. At the risk of sounding like our Dylan-hating friend Hrrundi, you don't get a whiff of underachieving teenager-style rationalizations in that note? I don't know, I simply don't get a sense that he had as great a command of his individual style of singing as, say, Dylan did. I think he gladly followed that model, and there's not a lot wrong with that. I simply think the sweater analogy applies to Jimi a little bit more than some other Townspeople might think it does. Fair enough if I'm in a little camp with Andyr, who I KNOW feels this way, and maybe a few others.

Again, General, we generally agree on this whole "singing like oneself" issue. The degree to which one likes Hendrix's voice is a matter of taste, but what I'm trying to get at is that I do not feel his idiosyncratic approach is somehow "groundbreaking" the way's Dylan's approach was. I think he's following in an idiosyncratic, "natural" tradition more than blazing his own path, if that makes any sense.

Again, I don't think his voice "sucks."

A quick pince nez. Here's a reproduction of the full Randy Newman ad dr john mentioned: http://www.exploding.biz/ads60s_text.asp?ad=11

The quote was "Once you get used to it, his voice is really something." The rest of the ad is even worse. Newman was seriously wounded by it when it came out.

I think it's hard to characterize whether there's a cop-out going on unless we know what Jimi's dad expected his son to sound like. I like Jimi's voice, and he does "put on" some fake voices in little spoken characterizatiosn here and there, it seems like it was his choice NOT to be a polished or artificed vocalist. I think he sided with the guitar over his voice, if a choice needed to be made, and I know he was shy or coy depending on your outlook about his singing voice. I think he's better than he thought he was. Is there a "good" singer trying to cover Foxy Lady somewhere? I'd rather list to him sing Little Wing than Clapton or Vaughn.

I think Dylan is a much better singer than Hendrix; he actually takes a lot of conscious risks as a vocalist. Hendrix goes more for a casual, this-is-just-how-I-sound approach. So I agree with what Mr. Mod is saying, while still finding Hendrix's vocals much more interesting than any number of technically better but more generic pop voices of his day.

Thanks for the clarification BigSteve.

I have a copy of the original artwork for the first Randy Newman album. It is really hard to believe how cheesy it is.

mockcarr wrote:

I'd rather list to him sing Little Wing than Clapton or Vaughn.

Tough competition!

Mwall wrote:

So I agree with what Mr. Mod is saying, while still finding Hendrix's vocals much more interesting than any number of technically better but more generic pop voices of his day.

We are in full agreement on your agreement with me. This pretty much gets at what I'm saying. I like his vocals on a number of songs too, and certainly he sings his signature songs better than anyone whose covered his songs has. I wouldn't mind hearing a real firecracker, like Steve Marriott or the Steve from The Easybeats sing some of his upbeat numbers, but then they would have sucked on the ballads.

From things I’ve read about him in the past, Hendrix was never very confident in his singing, especially around Electric Ladyland if I’m remembering right. So there are probably elements of both the underachieving teen and the “this is just how we do it today” shrug in that comment to his father.

but the contrast between his voice and his guitar playing/the fluid arrangements of the band sometimes leave me wanting more.

I get what you mean here, but part of why I think his songs work is that there isn’t a singer who’s in there fighting it out with the guitar.

The majority of his singing comes off as very conversational, with a lot of “uhs” and “ums” and stammering in there, and I think it was intentional, that he specifically wrote them to be delivered that way to express the uncertainty and insecurity that fed a lot of his music. I think I’ve said before that I consider him really underrated as a lyricist, and how he delivers his lyrics plays into a part of their effectiveness for me. Maybe, for comparison’s sake: Burning of the Midnight Lamp’s middle verse (“It really doesn't…really doesn't bother me…too much at all/It's just the, uh, ever falling dust”), drawn out to give extra shading to the narrator’s slide into realizing how alone he is vs. One Rainy Wish, where his narrator is really insistent on trying to describe this important dream before he forgets it, and his vocals grow considerably more confident to match it.

I like that his singing ends up humanizing his music, something that just about every cover of a Hendrix song lacks. The guitar playing makes him seem invincible, but his vocals expose the insecurity and vulnerability that tie together a good chunk of his songs.

I like the way you read hte "uhs" and "ums," Alexmagic. A convincing argument, although I still can't help but agreeing with my son's assessment. Really though, this is helpful.

I think jimi is a below average singer. He may sound like himself, but to me it sounds like he was content with a first take and was probably never challenged by Chas or any of his other producers to sng better. His phrasing is even worse than that

Anson Williams - when Mr mod wants to get my goat he'll say I'm singing like AW

There's an interview with Eddie Kramer and Chas Chandler (maybe from one of those 'making of' DVDs) where they talk about having constantly to reassure Jimi about his singing. They said the way he used vocal rhythms was essential to the success of the records they made with him. I especially liked the Band of Gypsies approach, where he experimented with using his voice and guitar as if they were one instrument.

I'm afraid that if Jimi had lived, he would have seized more control of his career, and he probably would have recorded with a 'good' vocalist, to disastrous effect.

Mr. Mod, I give you slack on the umbrage you took with our agreement on the bigger issue, while finding that our accord on several smaller points rankles. But really. The fact that Dylan is such a groud breaking vocalist only underscores the point. He was a diva, if not of singing per se, then surely of Image Projection as Icon, as well as of Poetry, and these demanded vocal oomph. He was a troubador first, and everything else came after. The singers I cited aren't "better" singers than the ones who were singers first and foremost, but they very often have a neighborly quality that appeals greatly to me.

And again, to me, the comments to his dad were about people singing a lot more informally than they did in the swing era. People of that era had a hard enough time getting behind the more vernacular singing of R&B and so forth, let alone the Blowin' In the Wind casualness of the post-Dylan period. I think he was doing his best, and was self-conscious about it, and knew that it wasn't the kind of thing his dad's generation would dig.

I am not alone in appreciating your own early vocal efforts with Head demos! You even had some of the same hang ups about your singing. Couldn't you just have said "all the kids are doing it" and not deprived the world of your smoky warble?®

Oh. And speaking of "his voice is really something once you get used to it," how about Joe Genaro? I never heard such a wide array of reactions to a voice! I have always found him incredibly musical, just hearing the voice as an instrument - without even getting to the great lyrics and such. And it always took me by surprise when people felt any other way. But I would play a song, and people would just be stunned and listen. And you never knew whether that meant they loved it or hated it until they told you!

i like slocum's backing of hendrix as a vocalist.

when listening to hendrix, i always feel that i can hear the person in there. i cherish that. the craft of singing is a wonderful thing, but it should never be at the expense of really performing a song. his lyrics may be naive sounding at times, but at least he sings them like he means them, rather than worrying so much about artifice.

live, he's not as good, but who is?

Hey, Sat -- you really think Hendrix was better in the studio than live? If so, I disagree!

General,

Flattery will get you somewhere, but I'm not sure I can go against my feelings on the quality of Hendrix's voice. I feel for the man. I think the man was a fantastic talent. I have been getting stoked like I haven't gotten stoked about the act of Guitar Heroism like I haven't been stoked in years since contemplating my son's insights, but I have trouble agreeing with you more than we have to date on this issue. I think we should be thankful for this accord, and if I haven't done so already, I agree that you agree with yourself on Hendrix's singing.

I like Joe's voice, and I think he's a perfect "second singer" in the Townshend mode. You've probably heard me say before that Pete was one of those "Are you happy now?" singers when, after years of rock nerds thinking he should have sang all the Who's songs, we were subjected to hearing his acoustic warblings on the mighty "Won't Get Fooled Again".

I can see why Joe's voice might grate on some, even in small doses. He's got a bit of Jonathan Richman's self-induced wedgie in him, doesn't he? Is he joking or not, and can we, as listeners, handle the truth either way?

Richman crosses the line with me real fast. I've been listening to the first Modern Lovers album a lot lately. my wife is always surprised that I love that album but hate just about everything else he's ever done. I don't feel this way about Joe and his music, by the way, but I would think he might hit a similar nerve for some listeners.

As for Sat's "live, he's not as good, but who is" rationale, I would venture to say, some singers are. I should note that his live singing in the version of "Voodoo Chile" that I posted is, in my opinion, very good.

Remember too that Jimi idolized Dylan, so the 'you sing with the voice you've got' approach makes perfect sense. Jimi's dad would have come from a time when one group of people wrote songs and then people with good voices sang them.

hvb asked: "Hey, Sat -- you really think Hendrix was better in the studio than live? If so, I disagree!"

actually, i think we're on the same page here: i like listening to live hendrix performances better. and i like his vocals better live, too.

but i could see why the mod's boy would say that hendrix isn't as good a singer as he is a guitarist after seeing a vid of him live. those old videos where rock performers are singing in front of earsplitting amps, in the days before good monitor systems, are never flattering documents of their singing abilities. daltrey is the only guy i can think of who consistently sounded good, in the technical sense, even as the who got really loud.

mod, i forgot to comment on your idea:

"You get him to that point of explosive, effortless soloing, and then I'll reel him in and see that he and his buds keep the songs in the 3:30 range."

that's exactly right!

we interrupt this jimi hendrix thread for the following bulletin.

HVB, this friend request just found its way to the photon band's inbox:

http://www.myspace.com/gerryjoeweiseblues

please check it out when you have a minute.

Mr. Mod wrote:
Again: I'm not saying he sucks, just that I fail to find him anything more than a serviceable vocalist.

It's not necessarily the notes or even his pipes, but his phrasing and expression. More than anyone, I think Dylan's phrasing and attitude had a big effect on Jimi's vocal delivery.

Alexmagic wrote:
I like that his singing ends up humanizing his music, something that just about every cover of a Hendrix song lacks.

Hear, hear!

There are times when his vocals reach up an match his guitar. Think of the end of the solo of All Along the Watchtower, when there's that high note at the solo's end (on the 5th of the scale), and then Jimi sings "Wwwwwall along...", his voice rising up like a rocket to a dramatic flatted 7th, echoing the phrasing of his guitar solo's ascension. Goose-bumpery.