Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re:  Prince != Jimi Hendrix
Message-ID: <552@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 22:07:51 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.552
Posted: Sun Feb 17 22:07:51 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Feb-85 06:04:14 EST
References: <8234@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1133@houxm.UUCP> <247@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 24

> But Hendrix' importance lies with his music  rather than with image and/or
> social "message".

A question I must ask here:  Huh?  If Jimi Hendrix's image wasn't of at least
equal importance to his music, then I'm the late Paul McCartney.  His clothing,
his swagger, his stunts (playing a guitar with one's teeth just for the sake
of playing a guitar with one's teeth and setting fire to one's guitar for
the sake of setting fire to one's guitar do NOT, at least to me, qualify as
importance stemming from the music), all were at least as important to the
phenomenon that was Jimi Hendrix as the guitar sound innovations that the man
produced.

Prince has a similar dichotomous nature:  both his somewhat eccentric image
and style play an important role in his mystique as much as his music does. 
Compare this with some bands/artists where image and style are all they have. 
(I won't mention names for fear of incurring certain people's wraths.)  Or even
with bands that are "purely" musicians without caring much for image and style.
Perhaps the most successful AND most influential are the ones who combine BOTH.
Not to say that they necessarily make the "best" music.  (Often the pure
musicians are a major influence on those who break through with both
musicianship/craft and image.)
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr