New Jimi consider...

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Olompali4

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 12:33:58 PM12/24/03
to
...any post Noel Redding lineup as "The Jimi Hendrix Experience" ?
And I mean Jimi..not the estate or Mitch or some poster artist, ie. Isle of
Wight.
Little debate goin on within the deadheads
I say No!

Olompali4

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 12:39:13 PM12/24/03
to
that header should read
"Did Jimi consider...."

New? I spaced...

3Defi

unread,
Dec 24, 2003, 7:21:42 PM12/24/03
to
>Olompali4 bespake :

> that header should read
> "Did Jimi consider...."
>
> New? I spaced...

Merry Christmas* Olompali4,

Are you talking about Jimi,Mitch&Buddy
as the JHE at Maui(Rainbow Bridge).??

Obviously you're talking about band iterations after ELL
[where Cox was also 'involved'-but not an official replacement
the LP sports Noel quite clearly..regardless of the breakup coinciding]

At woodstock Jimi was already switching names
and "Experince"(JHE) was already history - or did i miss something??
"D"

Mix

unread,
Dec 25, 2003, 2:44:39 AM12/25/03
to
We've had the debate here, as well. To my knowledge, Jimi himself *never*
referred to any post-Redding line-up as "The Experience". Some things I
read state that Jimi referred to the Billy-and-Mitch tour as the "Cry Of
Love Tour", and somehow the band became dubbed the "Cry Of Love Band". The
MCs at various venues since Noel left in 1969 continued to refer to and
marquee every Hendrix group, including the Woodstock line-up, as the "Jimi
Hendrix Experience". Ditto for the Isle Of Wight. In fact, when the MC
asked Jimi backstage what the group should be called, his response was "The
Blue Wild Angels". My sense, and that's all it is, is that Jimi was loath
to use the name "Jimi Hendrix Experience" following Noel's departure.
First, there was the management-orchestrated John Burks interview that
appears on the audio CD _Crosstown Conversations_, where Mike Jeffrey seems
anxious to impress upon the music press that Jimi didn't go "soul band" with
the Band Of Gypsys. The reunification of the Experience never occurred.
Noel Redding, who was present for the Burks interview in a somewhat bizarre
facade of group unity, was left standing alone at the altar the next day.
Jimi and Mitch agreed during a private phone conversation that they didn't
"want to go there again". A bewildered Noel was out as quickly as he was
in. Noel said as much in his book, and I believe this was also presented in
Glebeek's _JH - EG_.

Then, back at Woodstock a year before, he disavowed the "Jimi Hendrix
Experience" introduction. He said something like, "Let's get something
straight -- we got tired of "Experiencing" every once in awhile..."

When Janie assumed the reigns of the catalog with McDermott as historian,
suddenly the post-Redding, post-Woodstock, post BoG group was "The
Experience". The immediate posthumous albums, such as _Cry Of Love_ and
_Rainbow Bridge_ were not called "Jimi Hendrix Experience" albums, but
instead "Jimi Hendrix" albums.

I think Jimi had so much else going on everywhere else that he never even
bothered to name his new group. He didn't want to tour anyway.

- D
"Olompali4" <olom...@aol.compton> wrote in message
news:20031224123358...@mb-m11.aol.com...

pmanderley

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 11:32:02 AM12/26/03
to
"Mix" <nospamdo...@home.com> wrote in message news:<HzwGb.18742$T2....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
I think both Billy and Mitch have given interviews in recent years
(was it Guitar World or perhaps Mojo?) where they strongly debunked
the group being anything different than the JHE.

Of course, not having been there for the discussion with Jimi and the
boys, I can only draw on common sense which seems to be that while
Jimi may have been 'tired' of what the JHE meant to a segment of his
audience--burning/smashing the guitar for one example--but it was
still his band and his experience to share with people. He didn't
need to go 'solo' because it was already his band. People weren't
going to stop going to the shows or buying the records because it was
Billy instead of Noel. It was all about Jimi.

Paul

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 11:53:58 AM12/26/03
to
pmanderley says...

>I think both Billy and Mitch have given interviews in recent years
>(was it Guitar World or perhaps Mojo?) where they strongly debunked
>the group being anything different than the JHE.

>Of course, not having been there for the discussion with Jimi and the
>boys, I can only draw on common sense which seems to be that while
>Jimi may have been 'tired' of what the JHE meant to a segment of his
>audience--burning/smashing the guitar for one example--but it was
>still his band and his experience to share with people. He didn't
>need to go 'solo' because it was already his band. People weren't
>going to stop going to the shows or buying the records because it was
>Billy instead of Noel. It was all about Jimi.

I'm of the belief that the band really DID matter. Sure, Jimi was the obvious
draw, but it's all too easy to dismiss how much of an incredible BAND the JHE
was in its prime. Sure, Jimi and Noel got tired of working together, yada,
yada, most bands have a limited lifetime for one of those reasons. But BOG had
their own personality and it allowed different perspectives to flow out of Jimi.
So, whereas the non-serious Hendrix fan may have just been in the game to hear
him solo, those of us truly captivated by him looked at the complete setting and
saw the other players as having essential parts.

For example, how many other drummers, back in '66, would have fit into the
puzzle the way Mitch did? Very few, and those that could have might not have
been so willing to play the part Mitch did. He had alot of trust in Jimi, was
very loyal to him and was willing to do what was needed to follow the path to
vision. Noel too followed the path, but he was more easily distracted, had more
of an ego and wanted more leadership for himself.

And don't for a second kid yourself about the record sales. While he was alive,
his music was doing the selling. Many more people bought product than saw the
act, or even knew about the wild showmanship. While he was alive, had the music
gone south, the sales would have dried up like wet pavement on a hot sunny day.

sluggo

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 12:48:20 PM12/26/03
to

> For example, how many other drummers, back in '66, would have fit into the
> puzzle the way Mitch did? Very few, and those that could have might not
have
> been so willing to play the part Mitch did.

....as far as rock drummers , or pop drummers in `66..probably less than a
handful..[ I mean Ringo?...man he would`ve had a seizure trying to play with
Jimi..}
but don`t discount the very many tremendous jazz drummers who were breaking
ground simultaneously..

roach..jones elvin and jo cobham..dejohnette..baker..seamen ....
just for a lark..what popular drummers of the time do you think could`ve sat
in with Jimi and done allright..

sluggo


sluggo

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 12:49:57 PM12/26/03
to
> just for a lark..what popular drummers of the time do you think could`ve
sat
> in with Jimi and done allright..
>
> sluggo

..I`ll toss one out...Dino Danelli doing Fire...the cat was a precision
snare drummer..I`d of loved to have heard a whole lp of other drummers
behind some of jimi`s tunes.
sluggo


Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 5:32:10 PM12/26/03
to
sluggo says...

You read my mind. Exactly. Those cats could have played the music, but would
they have wanted to deal with the rest of the gig? Who knows, maybe one or two
of them woulda.

pmanderley

unread,
Dec 26, 2003, 6:39:20 PM12/26/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<bshp3...@drn.newsguy.com>...

Mad Dog:

I didn't mean to imply that Mitch, Noel, or Billy were simply baggage.
They were great behind Jimi on record and on stage. My point was
that Jimi was the front man and no one was going to return the record
or concert ticket they bought if Billy Cox was the bassist as opposed
to Noel. People wanted to see and hear Jimi--still do!

Paul

Mix

unread,
Dec 27, 2003, 12:28:06 AM12/27/03
to
Hi, Paul, et al:

No disagreement with anything anyone has said. My point was that I could
neither find nor recall any reference by Jimi himself to the post-Redding
band as the "Experience". They may have legally and/or contractually been
"The Experience", but I can't find anything anywhere in which Jimi himself
referred to them as such.

- D

"pmanderley" <pmand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe8daf2c.0312...@posting.google.com...

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 27, 2003, 7:41:07 AM12/27/03
to
pmanderley says...

>I didn't mean to imply that Mitch, Noel, or Billy were simply baggage.
> They were great behind Jimi on record and on stage. My point was
>that Jimi was the front man and no one was going to return the record
>or concert ticket they bought if Billy Cox was the bassist as opposed
>to Noel. People wanted to see and hear Jimi--still do!

That's all and good, but nobody was knocking down the door to sign Jimmy and the
Blue Flames. Chandler's vision was to assemble a better band with players
synergistic to Jimi's talents. Fact of the matter was that, pre-JHE, Jimi was a
very minor draw. It's not like he went through some huge transformation during
the plane flight. More than one person has observed that he had all his chops
by mid-66. Some folks say that a key part of the puzzle was hanging with Zappa
at the Garrick Theater. Frank supposedly let Jimi play theough his Wah-Wah and
showed him how to set a monitor up right to make it easier to control feedback.

Olompali4

unread,
Dec 27, 2003, 9:04:55 AM12/27/03
to
>No disagreement with anything anyone has said. My point was that I could
>neither find nor recall any reference by Jimi himself to the post-Redding
>band as the "Experience". They may have legally and/or contractually been
>"The Experience", but I can't find anything anywhere in which Jimi himself
>referred to them as such.
>
> - D
>

Yeah that's what I meant in the original post..did Jimi himself consider any
band without both Noel and Mitch "The Experience"
I don't believe so either.

Mix

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 4:56:10 AM12/28/03
to

"Olompali4" <olom...@aol.compton> wrote in message
news:20031227090455...@mb-m05.aol.com...

> Yeah that's what I meant in the original post..did Jimi himself consider
any
> band without both Noel and Mitch "The Experience"
> I don't believe so either.

Wait, Mitch was a constant in every live performance Hendrix group other
than the BoG, not counting jams and sit-ins. Perhaps I'm just splitting
hairs, since the original premise stands. I can find not one post-June,
1969 reference by Jimi Hendrix to his group as the "Experience". Of course,
the Mitchell/Cox configuration lasted only less than six months, from their
inaugural gig at the LA Forum in April 1970 to the Isle of Fehmarn in early
September. After that, the tour was aborted due to Cox' illness. Soon
after that, Jimi returned to England and died. Prior to his death, Jimi's
interviews seemed to revolve around an eventual "Experience" reunion, what
went wrong at MSG, what went wrong at IoW, how he felt about this or that
new group, what new directions his music would take on, "cartoon music" and
his continued relevance.

I stand by what I've said -- Jimi Hendrix himself *never* referred to a
post-Noel group as "The Experience".

- D


pmanderley

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 8:28:59 PM12/28/03
to
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<bsjul...@drn.newsguy.com>...

Mad Dog:
Don't agree. Unless I am mistaken, the only wah's in use at that
early stage [1966] were hand controlled units as opposed to foot
pedals. Don't think Frank Z was an influence.
Respect...friendship...etc. maybe and/or probably. Influenced? I do
see it from what I have read over the years.

You are on the right track regarding Chas Chandler though. None of it
would have happened in the same way if it wasn't for Chas.

Paul

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 10:01:22 PM12/28/03
to
pmanderley says...

>Don't agree. Unless I am mistaken, the only wah's in use at that
>early stage [1966] were hand controlled units as opposed to foot
>pedals.

I don't have the time now, but I'll try to find the reference. It's somewhere
in my library, the point being this is something I read as opposed to am making
up as idle conjecture. I don't think my memory is wrong on the Wah Wah or the
monitor setup for feedback control.

>Don't think Frank Z was an influence.

That's trickier to flesh out, considering both are dead. I've read in multiple
places that Jimi hung with Frank at the Garrick when the Mothers were playing
there and that Jimi stopped by Frank's house a couple of times and jammed a bit
(*). Frank wasn't very tolerant of many people that wanted to drop by, but he
apparently got along with Jimi and respected his music.



>You are on the right track regarding Chas Chandler though. None of it
>would have happened in the same way if it wasn't for Chas.

Interesting how short his window of influence was. As Jimi's popularity grew,
he was less willing to be influenced. That's probably as it should have been,
since he was wanting to use the studio as a creative environment instead of a
snapshot - and that was certainly going against the grain back in those days.

*: Frank was pretty fanatical about running tape all the time. You gotta wonder
if there's something in the vault. Even if it's just noodling, I'd pay to hear
it. Frank was a fairly decent rhythm guitarist, was comfortable improvising and
probably would have been willing to let Jimi have free run.

Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 28, 2003, 11:22:54 PM12/28/03
to

"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bso5e...@drn.newsguy.com...

> pmanderley says...
>
> >Don't agree. Unless I am mistaken, the only wah's in use at that
> >early stage [1966] were hand controlled units as opposed to foot
> >pedals.
>
> I don't have the time now, but I'll try to find the reference. It's
somewhere
> in my library, the point being this is something I read as opposed to am
making
> up as idle conjecture. I don't think my memory is wrong on the Wah Wah or
the
> monitor setup for feedback control.

It is, but only on the dates. It was the summer of '67, not in '66 as you
stated earlier in the thread. Zappa and Hendrix didn't meet until July 7,
1967, long after Jimi's image was set and he'd released AYE? and made his US
debut. Jimi also used a handcranked wah-wah prior to meeting or seeing
Zappa, but it was indeed Zappa who introduced Jimi to the pedal version, and
at the Garrick Theater.

> >Don't think Frank Z was an influence.
>
> That's trickier to flesh out, considering both are dead. I've read in
multiple
> places that Jimi hung with Frank at the Garrick when the Mothers were
playing
> there and that Jimi stopped by Frank's house a couple of times and jammed
a bit
> (*). Frank wasn't very tolerant of many people that wanted to drop by,
but he
> apparently got along with Jimi and respected his music.

All true, but taking place from July 67 forward.

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 7:39:51 AM12/29/03
to
Marshall Stack says...

>It is, but only on the dates. It was the summer of '67, not in '66 as you
>stated earlier in the thread. Zappa and Hendrix didn't meet until July 7,
>1967, long after Jimi's image was set and he'd released AYE? and made his US
>debut. Jimi also used a handcranked wah-wah prior to meeting or seeing
>Zappa, but it was indeed Zappa who introduced Jimi to the pedal version, and
>at the Garrick Theater.

I still need to take a good look at the books. I knew about the '67 meeting,
but thought it was the second time they met. I did just confirm that the
Wah-Wah incident was in '67, so I guess that gives some sort of credence to at
least a minor influence claim.

Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 12:40:57 PM12/29/03
to

"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bsp7a...@drn.newsguy.com...

FZ: "I think I was one of the first people to use the wah-wah pedal. I'd
never heard of Jimi Hendrix at the time I bought mine; I didn't even know
who he was. I had used wah-wah on clavinet, guitar, and saxophone when we
were doing 'We're Only In It For The Money' in '67, and that was right
before I met Hendrix. He came over and sat in with us at the Garrick Theater
that night and was using all the stuff we had on stage."


Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 29, 2003, 1:54:24 PM12/29/03
to
Marshall Stack says...

>FZ: "I think I was one of the first people to use the wah-wah pedal. I'd
>never heard of Jimi Hendrix at the time I bought mine; I didn't even know
>who he was. I had used wah-wah on clavinet, guitar, and saxophone when we
>were doing 'We're Only In It For The Money' in '67, and that was right
>before I met Hendrix. He came over and sat in with us at the Garrick Theater
>that night and was using all the stuff we had on stage."

That sounds pretty definitive. Is it out of his autobiography? I know I've
recently read something about feedback and keep thinking it was from '66, but
maybe I'm just plain wrong.

3Defi

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 3:53:40 AM12/30/03
to
>pmanderley bespake :

Quick notes to this thread*.
The first bunch completely dissagrees with the first part
of Mad Dog's conjectures - then AGREES with his latter part
perhaps a different way about Jimi already having "his chops"by NYC.
The biggest thing to keep in perspective is
..that ALL shit STARTING from NYC -HAPPENED AT LIGHTSPEED*

Then REMEMBER-REMEMBER-REMEMBER.!-- it's Linda Keith*-NOT Chas
that*had the vision/savvy/street-smarts &*intangible women's intuition*.

Linda Keith was *THE* person with*vision*not budding producer Chandler ;).
It was Chandler's lucky stars that he "was led by the nose to me Jimi"
forever indebted to *Linda Keith*-and DUMB LUCK.!!. . .haha!!!

Sure..people like to make all these *wonderkind/what a genius He was!??*
type statements about Chas's producing..but SOMEBODY-ANYBODY
that had the slighest *Linda Keith-type common sense* was gonna
SCRAMBLE the exact same way Chandler & ALL the REST did to Jimi*
As far as *production genius* you've got Chandler wanting ALL songs
to be somewhere between 2:49secs to maximum 3:something mins.
He didn't want anything to be WAY TO LONGGGGG. . haha!.
THANK GOD!! - Jimi told him to stick that rule where the sun didn't shine*
It was *Jimi's production - EVERYTHING*and well BEFORE he ever even
shook hands with Chandler - and said:"..hmm?. Chas ..ehH?! - I like you*"
"I'll ink - if you garentee to introduce me to Eric Clapton..etc.,etc."
Jimi was FULL aware(before Chas)that his*juggernaut*was unstoppable.!.

It's pretty clear "THEY'(whoever picked-up Jimi) needed Jimi -
not any other reverse to that - Jimi was NITRO EXPLODING
because of the *osmosis* that was happening already by NYC"66.
He'd already written the vast majority of material that made the hits
of Are You Experienced.."quote Noel & Mitch":
"..HA!.. HOW???..you ask,, did we record the tunes so fast??(short time)."
"..That was Jimi's doing -- it was ALL ..Jimi's doing.. .
....." You'ld comeinto the studio in the morning-yawn,.. open your eyes..
- then Jimi would TELL YOU what your parts were - 1/2/3.etc. ..done.!"..
"Then we just tracked it - and Jimi right away moved to the next ditty..".
"..(Jimi)would say.. and now on this one -the bass part is..etc.,.etc.."
"It was ALL Jimi right from the start all the way to the finnish..".

So Jimi didn't put all that together AFTER leaving NYC..don't think so*
He'd ALREADY composed and arranged.."gotten there in his mind"by NYC.
That's where i "agree" with MadDog saying-"Jimi had his chops by NYC"66".
But he didn't JUST HAVE CHOPS -- he had *the entire STAR Map*.
(also said)
" It's not like he(Jimi)went through some huge transformation
during the plane flight.."

That's precisely my point- the*transformation/ALL*was done before Chas.
Jimi was *launch-ready Saturn Five blasting-off*- only lacked FUEL.$
Executive$Money$Moola$big bread dough$a plane ticket & passport*
You dig where i'm comming from about that...IMHO*

----- quicker notes*

No one should underestimate Noel's stage presence-he was a champion LIVE!!
His body kinsetics/his smile/his eye signals/visual cues were tops*
Billy wasn't even close to Noel's stage presence(did Billy have any???)

For a bassman - in LIVE shows - no one was better-or a better draw
until you get to *Mel Schacher* and GRAND FUCK R/R.

Yes.. Jimi "frontman" but never underestimate the supporting cast.
Tell ya what.?.. I'd say Noel was MORE important than Chas Chandler*
Fans were REALLY DISAPPOINTED when Jimi split with Noel(& Mitch)
went onto the BOG -- STILL a *sore spot* - that H-U-R-T.!!!.
There were BIG fans that i knew that were so disappointed by BOG
that they remarked with sad eyes-"yeah?. Jimi blew that.. but it WAS good"
They weren't going to a BOG show..."What for.!??. .the Experience is OVER*"
That's even tuff to recall now in 2004??. .damn.!............. . .

Guess the plain old fact is that Jimi was ALWAYS a draw - to EVERYONE*
Just sitting on a wooden stool ..with anybody's 12.. "hear my train....etc"
We coulda held out there all night.!!.(bent quote from Donald Fagan ;)

--
The bit's about Frank Zappa/Jimi and Wah's..??.
Interesting that Jimi recorded *Burning of the Midnight Lamp(heavy Wah-Wah)*
on July 6th "67..and -doesn't meet Zappa until the next night"
at the Garrich on *July 7th*.
Something is weird there?. .If Zappa turned Jimi on to the Wah..etc.
how does Jimi record BOTML the day "before he's even seen him"??

Also read alot of quotes of Zappa's -but nothing he ever says
goes to say that he "mentored the Wah to Jimi"..(don't know about monitors)
But this bit with the wah-wah's is always a bit of speculation.

And getting the history of the Wah-Wah correct is the best starter.
http://208.55.241.160/kraft.htm

Let's skip the crap..get to the bone --- Zappa/Clapton/Beck
all got the Vox "Clyde McCoy" numbers from the start
and 'probably.??' preceded Jimi's BOTML with their various songs.
Yu know them.. Tales of Brave Ullysys..Zappa's tunes..Becks??
But Jimi debut's the Wah..with Axis..and ALL these guys
are cutting tracks with Wah's within a scant 3months of eachother
and often even less of a time period than that.

And the bits about "hand wah's'?.. or "custom made wah's"??
WHERE??.. What SONG??.. does Jimi show any use of such
before he's pumping that already staple VOX- Clyde McCoy unit
to the intro to BOTML..or even Up From the Skies(recorded 10/13/67)
I can't find a single song with a "wah effect" before Axis.?
Not saying i'm dead postitive -- but just show me if you can..ok?

HAA!.. the "VOX-Clyde McCoy wah".. quite the item that was.!!
- - -
Did Jimi draw influence/insirpration/ learn from ZAPPA.??
That HAD to go both ways -to a certain extent undoubtedly- absolutely.
And Jimi(probably Frank too ;) PREACHED *like Cpt.James H. Kirk*
"..Any musician - to seek out new life(influences)
and BOLDLY GO!!--where no MUSICIAN HAS GONE BEFORE.!! ! ! !.."


Peace & HNY.!!
3Defi

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 1:14:00 PM12/30/03
to
3Defi says...

>The biggest thing to keep in perspective is
>..that ALL shit STARTING from NYC -HAPPENED AT LIGHTSPEED*

Seems that way, but it was probably like a glacier to Jimi.

>Then REMEMBER-REMEMBER-REMEMBER.!-- it's Linda Keith*-NOT Chas
>that*had the vision/savvy/street-smarts &*intangible women's intuition*.

>Linda Keith was *THE* person with*vision*not budding producer Chandler ;).

Well, that could be semantics. Chandler was the one that had the in to the biz.
His vision was to put his money on the line and to work for the band. Linda
was, in effect, the savvy talent scout. She didn't have what it took - or at
least she wasn't willing to do the manager's/producer's job.

>It was Chandler's lucky stars that he "was led by the nose to me Jimi"
>forever indebted to *Linda Keith*-and DUMB LUCK.!!. . .haha!!!

Sure, but he did get his part done, at least initially. I'm not sure Jimi could
have ever got it done on his own, because he didn't seem to get into those kinds
of tasks.

>Sure..people like to make all these *wonderkind/what a genius

I don't think I've ever called Chandler a genius, nor ever thought that. But I
think he had some courage, because he was willing to put up his cash, live cheap
a while, sell his guitars, etc. Not just for the music, I suspect, but for the
eventual payoff.

> It's pretty clear "THEY'(whoever picked-up Jimi) needed Jimi -
>not any other reverse to that - Jimi was NITRO EXPLODING
>because of the *osmosis* that was happening already by NYC"66.

Now just imagine if either Mitch or Noel had been the savvy buisnessman that
young Jimmy Page was by the time Led Zep inked their contract. Jimi was never
gonna play that part, but imagine if the JHE had forced a fair contract upon
Jeffries.

>He'd already written the vast majority of material that made the hits
>of Are You Experienced.."quote Noel & Mitch":
>"..HA!.. HOW???..you ask,, did we record the tunes so fast??(short time)."
>"..That was Jimi's doing -- it was ALL ..Jimi's doing.. .
> ....." You'ld comeinto the studio in the morning-yawn,.. open your eyes..
>- then Jimi would TELL YOU what your parts were - 1/2/3.etc. ..done.!"..
>"Then we just tracked it - and Jimi right away moved to the next ditty..".
>"..(Jimi)would say.. and now on this one -the bass part is..etc.,.etc.."
>"It was ALL Jimi right from the start all the way to the finnish..".

The way I've read it was that he had the basic form of many songs underway and
he had some of the lyrics. For example, people have said that he had The Wind
Cries Mary underway back in NY in '66, but that he didn't really get the lyrics
ready to go till he had the fight with Kathy - and the Mary came from her middle
name, so that had to wait till London.

But Jimi was the consummate arranger/orchestrator before Chandler. He just
didn't get the opportunity to make it all come together until Chandler got him
into the studio with his own bankroll, then with Yameta's backing. Some people
belittle Curtis Knight in the extreme, but Jimi's time with Curtis' band may
have been very beneficial, in part because Jimi cut tracks with a variety of
instruments and had input on arrangements. Most folks need that studio time to
get to the point that they can create a vision for their own songs.

>That's precisely my point- the*transformation/ALL*was done before Chas.
>Jimi was *launch-ready Saturn Five blasting-off*- only lacked FUEL.$
>Executive$Money$Moola$big bread dough$a plane ticket & passport*
>You dig where i'm comming from about that...IMHO*

We're in agreement there. Having not been in the studio, I don't really know
who brought what. I've read comments about Chas' input and it seems that it had
an effect initially, one that dissolved away to the point that he sold out his
interest.

>There were BIG fans that i knew that were so disappointed by BOG
>that they remarked with sad eyes-"yeah?. Jimi blew that.. but it WAS good"
>They weren't going to a BOG show..."What for.!??. .the Experience is OVER*"
>That's even tuff to recall now in 2004??. .damn.!............. . .

And I never really understood that attitude. I guess I expect the best
musicians to go through changes. The folkies didn't like it when Dylan plugged
in. It took me a while to really absorb Electric Ladyland - in fact the
absorption process is still underway - but from the first spin, I knew that the
Are You Experienced era was so far in the past, we'd not be hearing those
mothballs anymore. Know what I mean? Like imagine how AYE and Axis were sort
of cut from the same cloth, with evolution to be sure, but EL was, to me at
least, a huge step into the future, as if another dimension had been added and
with the blues coming much more to the forefront. I was in heaven, but my head
was spinning at the same time. So, back when BoG happened, it seemed to be a
natural enough outgrowth. The first time I heard Who Knows, I was in there,
loving it and I didn't really care that it was a huge change, sorta figuring it
was transitional, maybe heading farther towards a jazz/blues/psych mix.

>The bit's about Frank Zappa/Jimi and Wah's..??.
>Interesting that Jimi recorded *Burning of the Midnight Lamp(heavy Wah-Wah)*
>on July 6th "67..and -doesn't meet Zappa until the next night"
>at the Garrich on *July 7th*.

Some books say he met Zappa right before recording Lamp.

>Did Jimi draw influence/insirpration/ learn from ZAPPA.??
>That HAD to go both ways -to a certain extent undoubtedly- absolutely.
>And Jimi(probably Frank too ;) PREACHED *like Cpt.James H. Kirk*
>"..Any musician - to seek out new life(influences)
>and BOLDLY GO!!--where no MUSICIAN HAS GONE BEFORE.!! ! ! !.."

I would be surprised if Jimi hadn't of liked that Frank was out of the
mainstream, thinking for himself, creating really new stuff, etc., as in: a
kindred spirit. Very different mechanistically, in that Frank had done the
school routine and Jimi learned by feel and sound. Both became incredible
producers/arrangers/orchestrators and both were very creative. Now just think
if Jimi had lived and managed to stay active - he might have produced the ~70
discs of original material like Frank or even more! Damn, I'm depressed now.

3Defi

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 3:18:02 PM12/30/03
to
>Mad Dog bespake :

> 3Defi says...
>
>> The biggest thing to keep in perspective is
>> ..that ALL shit STARTING from NYC -HAPPENED AT LIGHTSPEED*
>
> Seems that way, but it was probably like a glacier to Jimi.

There have been many who've made that conjecture too.
Yet..all things taken into account Jimi had to be pleased with the progress.
The biggest thing of all - was his decision to finally
grasp control as leader/creator/person-in-charge of his band
which he named Jimmy James and the Blue Flames as we know.
That was a major "head-step"..final chop to make.

Then what needs understanding is that Jimi chose *sitting in/Jams*
as a superior weapon to not only meet and aquire other musicians
but as the COMPLEAT *PR* mechanism bouncing all round NYC
to - at lonng - lon-n-g - L-O-N-GGGG LAST!!- carve his intials on the world*
Jimi knew the OLD song was true! --
"if i can make it there....
" i can make it - ANYWHERE..."
"..it's up to you - New York!-- New YOR-R-RK!!!.."
haha..ha!.

I think the most impressive thing about Jimi EVER WAS.!..
that he relentlessly - Jammed & sat in & jammed & played -BANG-BANG-BANG!!
Never stopped.! -- the ultimate devotee --Music was his MISSION*
Music was his religeon*-the love of his life*-the only true communication*
BUSY-BUSY-BUSY.! ! ! ! !.. .Just like his mind-blowing riffing*
He starts running up that neck and the dialogue begins..a sentence
a phrase.. a paragraph!!!--but he is just getting started!! --DOWN THE NECK!
2nd paragraph -- STANZA!!--the SIGNATURE.!!. .hammer-on..pull-off(gun it!!)
the riff is finally complete.. concluded - a full perfect picture*
And now that you've just realized what he just did* --you've already
fallen behind half the riff he's already doing NOW.!!!.
And how did he fit those 7 chords inbetween all that.!!?????. *.? :0o ?
**** J U G G E R N A U T ****

>> Then REMEMBER-REMEMBER-REMEMBER.!-- it's Linda Keith*-NOT Chas
>> that*had the vision/savvy/street-smarts &*intangible women's intuition*.
>
>> Linda Keith was *THE* person with*vision*not budding producer Chandler ;).
>
> Well, that could be semantics. Chandler was the one that had the in to the
> biz.
> His vision was to put his money on the line and to work for the band. Linda
> was, in effect, the savvy talent scout. She didn't have what it took - or at
> least she wasn't willing to do the manager's/producer's job.
>
>> It was Chandler's lucky stars that he "was led by the nose to me Jimi"
>> forever indebted to *Linda Keith*-and DUMB LUCK.!!. . .haha!!!
>
> Sure, but he did get his part done, at least initially. I'm not sure Jimi
> could
> have ever got it done on his own, because he didn't seem to get into those
> kinds
> of tasks.
>
>> Sure..people like to make all these *wonderkind/what a genius
>

> I don't think I've ever called Chandler a genius,nor ever thought that.But I
> think he had some courage,because he was willing to put up his cash,livecheap


> a while, sell his guitars, etc.Not just for the music,I suspect,but for the
> eventual payoff.

Yeah.. right on Man.. like i was saying.."sure .. people"-- *other people*
was in no way aimed at you.
And what i should have added - will now, is that Chas WAS definitly
a very good producer for Jimi right from the start. That's fact*
What i'm trying to say though - is that everything in the circumstances
and the "instinctive read" made by Lind Keith(lest we forget who's sister?)
added with the chances of everyone right then available to meet in NYC.
Quite lucky circumstances a good bit for all these parties to meld.
My higher point is that - Chas or not Chas - the same senario was ripe
little matter WHO it was stepped forward to sign Jimi - Jimi was destined*
Infact,, Eric Burdon stated he wanted to produce Jimi but was swamped
at that time with bookoo other contracts/bands/ and responsibilities.
So here!-here!!.. good thing Chas wasn't --and DID make history. right on.

>> It's pretty clear "THEY'(whoever picked-up Jimi) needed Jimi -
>> not any other reverse to that - Jimi was NITRO EXPLODING
>> because of the *osmosis* that was happening already by NYC"66.
>
> Now just imagine if either Mitch or Noel had been the savvy buisnessman that
> young Jimmy Page was by the time Led Zep inked their contract. Jimi was never
> gonna play that part, but imagine if the JHE had forced a fair contract upon
> Jeffries.
>

That's a dark planet going into his management charactors..Michael Jeff
not being the only cloaked figure.. uhuh.. ; >j .. .

>> He'd already written the vast majority of material that made the hits
>> of Are You Experienced.."quote Noel & Mitch":
>> "..HA!.. HOW???..you ask,, did we record the tunes so fast??(short time)."
>> "..That was Jimi's doing -- it was ALL ..Jimi's doing.. .
>> ....." You'ld comeinto the studio in the morning-yawn,.. open your eyes..
>> - then Jimi would TELL YOU what your parts were - 1/2/3.etc. ..done.!"..
>> "Then we just tracked it - and Jimi right away moved to the next ditty..".
>> "..(Jimi)would say.. and now on this one -the bass part is..etc.,.etc.."
>> "It was ALL Jimi right from the start all the way to the finnish..".
>
> The way I've read it was that he had the basic form of many songs underway and
> he had some of the lyrics.

That's what i said.. "vast majority of the material" -not each lyric
or even all of each musical structure - there was a bit he came up with
for Noel & Mitch.. had too, certainly. But mitch and Noel have been clear.

>For example, people have said that he had The Wind
> Cries Mary underway back in NY in '66, but that he didn't really get the
> lyrics
> ready to go till he had the fight with Kathy - and the Mary came from her
> middle
> name, so that had to wait till London.
>
> But Jimi was the consummate arranger/orchestrator before Chandler. He just
> didn't get the opportunity to make it all come together until Chandler got him
> into the studio with his own bankroll, then with Yameta's backing. Some
> people
> belittle Curtis Knight in the extreme, but Jimi's time with Curtis' band may
> have been very beneficial, in part because Jimi cut tracks with a variety of
> instruments and had input on arrangements. Most folks need that studio time

> get to the point that they can create a vision for their own songs.
>

Absolutely right.. and when one reviews Jimi's learning spectrum
going back all the way to his meeting Billy & gigs in the Army
and the successive chitlin runs - meeting & jamming* w/everybody
the process became a colledge for Jimi - and he graduated Phi-Beta-Cappra*
*LOL*

>> That's precisely my point- the*transformation/ALL*was done before Chas.
>> Jimi was *launch-ready Saturn Five blasting-off*- only lacked FUEL.$
>> Executive$Money$Moola$big bread dough$a plane ticket & passport*
>> You dig where i'm comming from about that...IMHO*
>
> We're in agreement there. Having not been in the studio, I don't really know
> who brought what. I've read comments about Chas' input and it seems that it
> had
> an effect initially, one that dissolved away to the point that he sold out his
> interest.

Jimi had to wrest control of ELL - it was his "big baby" and no one else
was really going to understand what it was about - what he envisioned
and what secrets he embedded into those cherrished grooves.
Jimi was THE* catapillar-turned-butterfly.. and it was inevitable
for his to hug Chas goodbye and "move onto the next world-and not be late".



>> There were BIG fans that i knew that were so disappointed by BOG
>> that they remarked with sad eyes-"yeah?. Jimi blew that.. but it WAS good"
>> They weren't going to a BOG show..."What for.!??. .the Experience is OVER*"
>> That's even tuff to recall now in 2004??. .damn.!............. . .
>
> And I never really understood that attitude. I guess I expect the best
> musicians to go through changes. The folkies didn't like it when Dylan
> plugged in.

You could make the exact same allusion to the end of POLICE*
What a loss amputating the essence that was Copeland & Summers.
I greive more about that *change* then BOG.. haha!..ha!!

I went for giving BOG a try - didn't blink went down and bought it
without even hearing a tune from it -- "is it Hendrix?? - here's ten bucks*"
After listening to machine gun.. i felt justified* - not before tho.
My eventual conviction was that BOG was good - but a definite letdown.
It's the same old song with nearly all our favorite groups ofcourse.
It's the old great white sharrr thing all over..
".. it keeps moving and eating - or it dies - and can't have THAT!??"
So let them break-up.. sayonnarra.. so long -- bye,bye --FAREWEL-L-L-L*


>It took me a while to really absorb Electric Ladyland - in fact the
> absorption process is still underway - but from the first spin, I knew that
> the
> Are You Experienced era was so far in the past, we'd not be hearing those
> mothballs anymore. Know what I mean? Like imagine how AYE and Axis were sort
> of cut from the same cloth, with evolution to be sure, but EL was, to me at
> least, a huge step into the future, as if another dimension had been added and
> with the blues coming much more to the forefront. I was in heaven, but my
> head
> was spinning at the same time. So, back when BoG happened, it seemed to be a
> natural enough outgrowth. The first time I heard Who Knows, I was in there,
> loving it and I didn't really care that it was a huge change, sorta figuring
> it
> was transitional, maybe heading farther towards a jazz/blues/psych mix.
>
>> The bit's about Frank Zappa/Jimi and Wah's..??.
>> Interesting that Jimi recorded *Burning of the Midnight Lamp(heavy Wah-Wah)*
>> on July 6th "67..and -doesn't meet Zappa until the next night"
>> at the Garrich on *July 7th*.
>
> Some books say he met Zappa right before recording Lamp.

Oh yeah??.. where's that? like to see that ;)

>
>> Did Jimi draw influence/insirpration/ learn from ZAPPA.??
>> That HAD to go both ways -to a certain extent undoubtedly- absolutely.
>> And Jimi(probably Frank too ;) PREACHED *like Cpt.James H. Kirk*
>> "..Any musician - to seek out new life(influences)
>> and BOLDLY GO!!--where no MUSICIAN HAS GONE BEFORE.!! ! ! !.."
>
> I would be surprised if Jimi hadn't of liked that Frank was out of the
> mainstream, thinking for himself, creating really new stuff, etc., as in: a
> kindred spirit. Very different mechanistically, in that Frank had done the
> school routine and Jimi learned by feel and sound. Both became incredible
> producers/arrangers/orchestrators and both were very creative. Now just think
> if Jimi had lived and managed to stay active - he might have produced the ~70
> discs of original material like Frank or even more! Damn, I'm depressed now.

He'da be giving a free concert in Madison Square Garden New YearsEve night*
Jamming with Ritchie Havens this..Thursday night*
Composing with Herbie Hancock on Friday night*..
And hosting Saturday Night Live come this Saturday night*
with special musical guest - *Joni Mitchell*.

somethin' like that ;0)
Happy 2004*.!!.
3Defi

Martin

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 3:21:31 PM12/30/03
to
Mike wrote:
> And the bits about "hand wah's'?.. or "custom
> made wah's"?? WHERE??.. What SONG??.. does
> Jimi show any use of such before he's pumping
> that already staple VOX- Clyde McCoy unit
> to the intro to BOTML..or even Up From the
> Skies(recorded 10/13/67) I can't find a single
> song with a "wah effect" before Axis.? Not saying
> i'm dead postitive -- but just show me if you can..ok?

Greetings Mike and fellow subscribers.

Mike, according to "Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy" by Glebbeek and Shapiro,
"four guitars play the solo, two with wah-wah, one with distortion" on "I
Don't Live Today." I believe this was a hand wah-wah. Tony Brown's
discographical Appendix in the aforementioned book notes that it was Jimi's
first recording "with a wau-wau effect." It was recorded in February 1967.

One thing is puzzling though, "Burning of the Midnight Lamp" was recorded 7
July 1967 and finished on 20 July 1967, and "STP with LSD" was recorded 18
July 1967 and finished on 29 July 1967. Both tracks were released on Track
604007 on 19 August 1967, yet "Electric Gypsy" says of "STP with LSD" -
"This is the first released recording where Jimi used a wah-wah foot pedal."
Does that imply he did not use one on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp"?

--
Martin
http://martinobrien.co.uk/
Co-moderator Electric Sky Church eGroup
To subscribe e-mail ElectricSkyCh...@yahoogroups.com

Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 3:50:35 PM12/30/03
to

"Martin" <martin.o_brien@[no-spam]which.net> wrote in message
news:B7lIb.24279$Qc3....@fe04.private.usenetserver.com...

> Mike wrote:
> > And the bits about "hand wah's'?.. or "custom
> > made wah's"?? WHERE??.. What SONG??.. does
> > Jimi show any use of such before he's pumping
> > that already staple VOX- Clyde McCoy unit
> > to the intro to BOTML..or even Up From the
> > Skies(recorded 10/13/67) I can't find a single
> > song with a "wah effect" before Axis.? Not saying
> > i'm dead postitive -- but just show me if you can..ok?
>
> Greetings Mike and fellow subscribers.
>
> Mike, according to "Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy" by Glebbeek and Shapiro,
> "four guitars play the solo, two with wah-wah, one with distortion" on "I
> Don't Live Today." I believe this was a hand wah-wah. Tony Brown's
> discographical Appendix in the aforementioned book notes that it was
Jimi's
> first recording "with a wau-wau effect." It was recorded in February 1967.

Yep. "I Don't Live Today" is, I believe, the only JHE song released with the
hand-wah effect prior to Jimi transitioning to a pedal wah. Somewhere around
here I've got an interview with Mitch that talks about using the hand wah in
the studio, but there's also this bit from Sessions:

February 1967 - Typical of Chandler's approach, the group focused initially
on crafting an acceptable basic track. Once the arrangement and tempo had
been decided, Jimi turned to refining his guitar parts. Especially notable
was his use of a hand wah-wah unit, a sound device that many fans have come
to identify as an important component of the Hendrix sound.

> One thing is puzzling though, "Burning of the Midnight Lamp" was recorded
7
> July 1967 and finished on 20 July 1967, and "STP with LSD" was recorded 18
> July 1967 and finished on 29 July 1967. Both tracks were released on Track
> 604007 on 19 August 1967, yet "Electric Gypsy" says of "STP with LSD" -
> "This is the first released recording where Jimi used a wah-wah foot
pedal."
> Does that imply he did not use one on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp"?

Well, first off recording for "Burning" began on July 6, the evening before
Hendrix and Zappa met. The basic track was probably finished on the 6th,
then after his encounter with Zappa Jimi may have taken a wah-wah into the
studio at Mayfair to experiment with on the evening of the 7th (I'm not sure
Mitch and Noel were even present for the session, although Noel did attend
the Zappa concert with Jimi - and in mid-1967, it was a bit unusual for even
a JHE session to begin so late. Later of course it became standard, but I
think this time he was simply inspired by his experience at the Garrick
Theater to go in and play with the wah for a few hours.) The obvious thing
to do, once he'd noodled a bit, was use the wah-wah as an effect on an
actual song and "Burning" was just sitting there waiting for him.

Where I think EG is wrong is that they consider the wah-wah to have been
part of the 7/20 sessions rather than the 7/7 sessions (thus the 7/18
"Stars" session would have been the first use of wah-wah in the studio by
Jimi.) And since I can't say with absolute certainty that Jimi did indeed
record with the wah on the 7th, they may indeed be right. But the timing of
the session on the 7th, and the fact that it doesn't seem to have been a
"normal" Experience session (whatever that is) leads me to believe Jimi's
first recorded through a pedal wah on the evening of July 7th, 1967 on
"Burning" (although there's also the possibility that after his experiments
on "STP" he decided to scrap whatever overdubs he made on the 7th and
re-record new wah parts on the 20th, in which case EG would also be correct
in their statement.)


Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 3:52:15 PM12/30/03
to

"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bspt9...@drn.newsguy.com...

I'm not sure where the original quote came from. It's in my copy of Tony
Brown's Jimi Hendrix - A Visual Documentary (which I tracked down after
seeing it mentioned on this group about a year and a half ago.)


3Defi

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 9:51:47 PM12/30/03
to
>Martin bespake :

> Mike wrote:
>> And the bits about "hand wah's'?.. or "custom
>> made wah's"?? WHERE??.. What SONG??.. does
>> Jimi show any use of such before he's pumping
>> that already staple VOX- Clyde McCoy unit
>> to the intro to BOTML..or even Up From the
>> Skies(recorded 10/13/67) I can't find a single
>> song with a "wah effect" before Axis.? Not saying
>> i'm dead postitive -- but just show me if you can..ok?
>
> Greetings Mike and fellow subscribers.
>
> Mike, according to "Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy" by Glebbeek and Shapiro,
> "four guitars play the solo, two with wah-wah, one with distortion" on "I
> Don't Live Today." I believe this was a hand wah-wah. Tony Brown's
> discographical Appendix in the aforementioned book notes that it was Jimi's
> first recording "with a wau-wau effect." It was recorded in February 1967.

Hi Marty*.. Happy New Year and Wishes for the best of Health in 2004.!!.
Thanks for this bit and must report that i just put "I Don't Live Today"
thru all the paces under our studios new flexlazer atomic sonicdissector
[ headphones ;0) ..] and it's pretty clear that it's only to the continual
highnote riffing in the background which is being almost constantly
put in a state of vibrato flux(fast whammy action) which *might*exhibit
anything that one could even remotely identify as *Wah-effects*.
Undoubtedly if it was a "VOX-Clyde McCoy" type sound
the "hand-wah" was supposed to acheive - or something similar in Wah-sound
it failed *miserably* -.. fell horrribly short.
Jimi got much more "wah-effects" just spinning his Strat's tone knob
or his classic "psuedo wah-effect" --- to speed-toggle the P/U control.
Had to be one idiot switch that Roger Mayer never wished to lay claim to.
Or anyone that wanted to keep a job as a sound tech/designer.!! *LOL*

>
> One thing is puzzling though, "Burning of the Midnight Lamp" was recorded 7
> July 1967 and finished on 20 July 1967, and "STP with LSD" was recorded 18
> July 1967 and finished on 29 July 1967. Both tracks were released on Track
> 604007 on 19 August 1967, yet "Electric Gypsy" says of "STP with LSD" -
> "This is the first released recording where Jimi used a wah-wah foot pedal."
> Does that imply he did not use one on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp"?

hmmm??.. yeah, again none of this stuff really speaks to the real question
of *..When - Where - Who - did Jimi first see the VOX(footpedal wah)*
as there still isn't a bit that really states Zappa"introduced Jimi to Wah"
Right along with that(Roger Mayer probably knows?)- all the same info
on his *first purchase* of the venerable VOX-Clyde McCoy wah....or indeed
WHICH brand of footpedal Wah he intially bought.
That woud clear-up this rather rediculous bit of acheiving answers
by trying to domino all these old schedule..diary type notes together.
They lack needed info let alone often argue dates too often.

Cheers O-B-Wan*
3Defi

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 30, 2003, 10:33:18 PM12/30/03
to
3Defi says...

>>Mad Dog bespake :

>Yet..all things taken into account Jimi had to be pleased with the progress.

Well, I think the songs are damn fine. That had to feel good, even if, as he
sometimes said, he wasn't always getting exactly the sound/feel he wanted.

>I think the most impressive thing about Jimi EVER WAS.!..
>that he relentlessly - Jammed & sat in & jammed & played -BANG-BANG-BANG!!
>Never stopped.! -- the ultimate devotee --Music was his MISSION*

Exactly. Total devotion. You'd think he woulda needed a break every now and
then, but apparently that wouldn't come till nearer to the end.

>My higher point is that - Chas or not Chas - the same senario was ripe
>little matter WHO it was stepped forward to sign Jimi - Jimi was destined*

No doubt. The unstoppable force was gonna happen.

> Jimi was THE* catapillar-turned-butterfly.. and it was inevitable
>for his to hug Chas goodbye and "move onto the next world-and not be late".

Yep. Every genius has distinct phases that have to be moved beyond.

>>> on July 6th "67..and -doesn't meet Zappa until the next night"
>>> at the Garrich on *July 7th*.

>> Some books say he met Zappa right before recording Lamp.

>Oh yeah??.. where's that? like to see that ;)

To clarify, I meant before he recorded the wah-wah onto Lamp. Page 117 of Keith
Shadwick's Musician, left column, a little over half way down:

"In between sessions, Hendrix and Redding checked out Frank Zappa at Greenwich
Village's Garrick Theater, while Mitchell went to see Miles Davis and Dizzy
Gillespie elsewhere in the Village. Hendrix immediately became fixated on
Zappa's use of a wah-wah pedal for his guitar and used one the same evening for
overdubs on the new single."

>He'da be giving a free concert in Madison Square Garden New YearsEve night*
>Jamming with Ritchie Havens this..Thursday night*
>Composing with Herbie Hancock on Friday night*..
>And hosting Saturday Night Live come this Saturday night*
>with special musical guest - *Joni Mitchell*.

>somethin' like that ;0)

Indeed. Happy New Year to you too!

3Defi

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 1:02:47 AM12/31/03
to
>Mad Dog bespake :

> Yep. Every genius has distinct phases that have to be moved beyond.

Guess that might make us all qualify as "somewhat genius' ;)
[ new song ; " Still Phasing .. Still Moving.."..,. :0) ]



>>>> on July 6th "67..and -doesn't meet Zappa until the next night"
>>>> at the Garrich on *July 7th*.
>
>>> Some books say he met Zappa right before recording Lamp.
>
>> Oh yeah??.. where's that? like to see that ;)
>
> To clarify, I meant before he recorded the wah-wah onto Lamp. Page 117 of
> Keith Shadwick's Musician, left column, a little over half way down:
>
> "In between sessions, Hendrix and Redding checked out Frank Zappa at Greenwich
> Village's Garrick Theater, while Mitchell went to see Miles Davis and Dizzy
> Gillespie elsewhere in the Village. Hendrix immediately became fixated on
> Zappa's use of a wah-wah pedal for his guitar and used one the same evening
> for
> overdubs on the new single."
>

This report has got to be suspect for(any) accuracy because:
1. The official recordings of BOTML both "stereo & mono"
were taped during the all-day into late night sessions.
There are four distinct takes,,,the last of which was recorded
just before midnight at 11:31pm.
Full info here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ldouglasbell/dir1/tapelis1.htm

Mayfair
06 Jul [S237] Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official) 0:39
06 Jul [S019] (1) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official, mono) 3:36
06 Jul [S019] (2) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official) 3:37
06 Jul Burning of the Midnight Lamp (T, diff. mix) 3:37
06 Jul (4) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (mixing tape) 23:21
19 Jul [S020] (2) STP-LSD (official, mono mix) 4:15
19 Jul [S020] (3) STP-LSD (official) 4:18
19 Jul [S1120] (4) STP-LSD (alternate mix) 4:06
19 Jul [S1120] (4) STP-LSD (slightly different alternate mix) 4:06
19 Jul [S1120] (5) STP-LSD (different mono mix) 4:25

I've included the session records for STARS THAT PLAY(STP)
to also refute any Gleebeck etc.,. as to which was recorded w/Wah first.
The mistake Gleebeck most likely makes is the wording about which 1st
as both songs were pressed and released as the A&B of a UK single.
08-19-67: The Burning of the Midnight Lamp / The Star's that Played with
Laughing Sam's Dice released as 4th single
. . .
One could claim EITHER song was the 1st with a Wah..pertaining to release.
Whatever.. there is no record of a BOTML Mayfair session on the 7th
nor any session on the 7th at all?.
- - -
But it's time to get to the real NEWS FLASH* which is that Jimi
had already purchased a Wah-Wah Pedal* -the previous month, in June
and the purchase was made in the UK.

AFAIC..that eliminates any chance that Zappa "introduced Jimi to wah-wah'.
It also relegates any further speculations about Zappa letting him use
or otherwise "borrow" his VOX-Clyde McCoy to a mere possibility
that Jimi's personal Wah-Wah was not as good sounding*(inferior)
[..maybe the battery was dead..or it was in-op some other way..]
that*might*have made it possible as a reason for Jimi to "borrow"Zappa's.
Zappa never says "i loaned Jimi my VOX for(any)sessions"-let alone BOTML
so along with being inconsequential..if true at all.?? - Noel's on record
and lays all the speculation about Zappa aside.(Zappa even says himself
that he'd just gotten his Vox-Clyde McCoy wah *just* before he met Jimi.!)

A smoking gun* directly from Noel :

*Over the previous days, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had been recording "The
Burning Of The Midnight Lamp", Jimi's first song in which he used a Wah-Wah
pedal to great effect. According to Noel, Jimi had picked up this pedal in
England during June, just before the Experience set off for America.

All the many quotes are found at this link :
http://www.thebignote.com/archived/some_more_pt_iii.php

** one other thing about the words close to the bottom
telling of Clapton/Jimi standing in for photo shots for Zappa's album
"We're only in it for the Money"...is that it never states when
it was specifically Jimi supposedly "borrowed" Zappa's wah-wah pedal
other than a totally vague reference to "back at the Garrick" - vague
because Jimi bounced around with Zappa quite a bit during
"Zappa's & the Mother's" long six-month run at the Garrick theatre.
Could have borrowed it months later.. so it means nothing actually.

When I read Zappa's statement about "being one of the first to wah"
and " ..i hadn't even heard of Jimi Hendrix when i got mine.." etc.,etc.
It really says to me that he's just airing out any thoughts in the reverse!
He's letting it be known "Hendrix didn't introduce HIM to wah-wah".
He's letting it be know(intended actually) - that though they BOTH
had picked-up on the Wah-wah pedal --- they both aquired the pedals
totally and completely inconsequential and fully *unbeknownst to eachother*.

Any ideas or imaginings that Jimi borrowed Zappa's VOX to
completely rebuild a *Wah-less BOTML* is AFAIC preposturous
knowing what Noel stated - and seeing the Official recording session logs.

There is a minute possiblity that Jimi borrowed Zappa's VOX
as i said before "'..because it had a superb sound..'" and performed
*ADDED Wah-dubbs* to BOTML.. subsequently onto the already
fully Wah-Wah version they'd recorded at Mayfair all day & night June 6th.

Yu kno??.. it's funny how many times i must have read that
quote from Noel and yet never had it sink -- HAA!!. .*LOL*

Hey!.?.. just realized something else too.. Zappa is rumored to
have participated with a throng of buddy's at the Mayfair session
for STP-LSD on *June 18th* which according to Gleebeck has Wah-Wah.
Suppose it might be even more likely that Zappa brought his VOX
specifically as a personal request by Jimi to "borrow" for the comedy.
That fits easier to STP-LSD than trying to imagine the reverse to BOTML.
Interesting stuff for chatter, yes.. Jimi and his wah-wah's.
*LOL*

>
> Indeed. Happy New Year to you too!

Tip O' the Glass*
3Defi

Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 3:16:02 AM12/31/03
to

"3Defi" <King_Neptune@your_leige.com> wrote in message
news:BC17C2A7.17537%King_Neptune@your_leige.com...

> >
> This report has got to be suspect for(any) accuracy because:
> 1. The official recordings of BOTML both "stereo & mono"
> were taped during the all-day into late night sessions.
> There are four distinct takes,,,the last of which was recorded
> just before midnight at 11:31pm.
> Full info here:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~ldouglasbell/dir1/tapelis1.htm
>
> Mayfair
> 06 Jul [S237] Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official) 0:39
> 06 Jul [S019] (1) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official, mono) 3:36
> 06 Jul [S019] (2) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (official) 3:37
> 06 Jul Burning of the Midnight Lamp (T, diff. mix) 3:37
> 06 Jul (4) Burning of the Midnight Lamp (mixing tape) 23:21
> 19 Jul [S020] (2) STP-LSD (official, mono mix) 4:15
> 19 Jul [S020] (3) STP-LSD (official) 4:18
> 19 Jul [S1120] (4) STP-LSD (alternate mix) 4:06
> 19 Jul [S1120] (4) STP-LSD (slightly different alternate mix) 4:06
> 19 Jul [S1120] (5) STP-LSD (different mono mix) 4:25
>
> I've included the session records for STARS THAT PLAY(STP)
> to also refute any Gleebeck etc.,. as to which was recorded w/Wah first.
> The mistake Gleebeck most likely makes is the wording about which 1st
> as both songs were pressed and released as the A&B of a UK single.
> 08-19-67: The Burning of the Midnight Lamp / The Star's that Played with
> Laughing Sam's Dice released as 4th single

I like how you're including records to "refute Glebbeck" when Glebbeek is
one of the sources for those records. The author of that page makes clear
he's pulling material from many sources and when they contradict, he chooses
between them. No guarantee is made to accuracy.

Aside from Electric Gypsy, which at least twice has Jimi recording at
Mayfair on the 7th after the Zappa concert, both the Tony Brown Visual
Documentary and Noel's diary (which was written at the time, not years later
as some of his more doubtful tales were) states that there was a session at
Mayfair on both the 6th and 7th.

There's also no "mistake in wording" about the single. EG has distinctly
different sections for each song. The notes specifically refer to STP as the
first released recording with wah-wah.

> One could claim EITHER song was the 1st with a Wah..pertaining to release.
> Whatever.. there is no record of a BOTML Mayfair session on the 7th
> nor any session on the 7th at all?.

What you're using as a source is not the definitive "record" of anything, as
I illustrated above. Considering Noel's diary is the best contemporary
source on the matter of a seesion on the 7th that I've seen to date, I'm
more inclined to go with his version, especially when claims to the contrary
are admitted as simply choosing between various sources with no guarantee of
accuracy.

> But it's time to get to the real NEWS FLASH* which is that Jimi
> had already purchased a Wah-Wah Pedal* -the previous month, in June
> and the purchase was made in the UK.
>
> AFAIC..that eliminates any chance that Zappa "introduced Jimi to wah-wah'.

Assuming the attribution to Noel is accurate. You've dismissed far more
concrete evidence in the past when it conflicted with one of your egg
theories. That's the difference between us: I'm talking about likelihoods
and possibilities based on all the available data, you're making unilateral
dismissals based on one source that admits it picks and chooses and another
that paraphrases Noel rather than quoting him directly.

> It also relegates any further speculations about Zappa letting him use
> or otherwise "borrow" his VOX-Clyde McCoy to a mere possibility
> that Jimi's personal Wah-Wah was not as good sounding*(inferior)
> [..maybe the battery was dead..or it was in-op some other way..]
> that*might*have made it possible as a reason for Jimi to "borrow"Zappa's.
> Zappa never says "i loaned Jimi my VOX for(any)sessions"-let alone BOTML
> so along with being inconsequential..if true at all.?? - Noel's on record
> and lays all the speculation about Zappa aside.(Zappa even says himself
> that he'd just gotten his Vox-Clyde McCoy wah *just* before he met Jimi.!)
>
> A smoking gun* directly from Noel :
>
> *Over the previous days, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had been recording
"The
> Burning Of The Midnight Lamp", Jimi's first song in which he used a
Wah-Wah
> pedal to great effect. According to Noel, Jimi had picked up this pedal in
> England during June, just before the Experience set off for America.
>
> All the many quotes are found at this link :
> http://www.thebignote.com/archived/some_more_pt_iii.php

The most important quote, from Noel, is not there (only a paraphrasing of
any statement he made on the subject.) However, it reminds me that one of
the Noel interviews I've read may pertain to the purchasing of the wah-wah.
When I have a chance I'll dig it out and see if I can find the reference.

Although... having checked a reference in Noel's autobiography, I notice he
also claims the intro to "Burning" was inspired by his idea of playing a
twelve-string through a wah-wah, which lies in stark contrast to the more
accepted story that it was Jimi's experimenting with the harpsichord in
Olympic's Studio A which inspired that part (and the song as a whole
developed around that.) Given that there's no twelve-string on the tune but
there is a harpsichord, and that the tune is credited solely to Hendrix, I'm
more inclined to go with Jimi's version and be a bit skeptical of Noel's.
It's possible the story about Jimi picking up a wah-wah in June was a later
necessary embroidering of the tale by Noel, as he could hardly have used a
wah-wah to work up a tune whose basic tracks were recorded the day before
any member of the Experience got their hands on a wah-wah, could he?

And of course one has to question, if Jimi indeed picked up a wah-wah back
in June, why didn't he bring it with him to America? He was planning an
all-out sonic and visual onslaught at Monterey and made no attempt to either
bring this new and valued piece of his arsenal with him or pick up a
replacement in America, either prior to Monterey or in the weeks between the
festival and his attending the Zappa concert? For someone who so obviously
fell in love with the wah-wah once he did get his hands on it, it would be a
bit odd...


3Defi

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 5:27:17 AM12/31/03
to
>Marshall Stack bespake :

First.. Happy New Year,. trying to ignore the BS rhetoric.
*Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*
There??.. does that make you feel better?
How about we skip the barbs and strick to the points instead.

> > "3Defi" wrote in message


That's bull,Stack - you've mischaracterized the record from the start
The fact is he say's *where there is a conflict -he's opts for latest
update*
shit!! -- here's the damn quote:
- - - --
II. STUDIO, PRIVATE, AND RADIO/TV

Here's my studio listing, which is given chronologically track by track.
Dates are arrived at by reference to "Electric Gypsy", "Plug Your Ears",
"Sessions", and "From the Benjamin Franklin Studios".
-
*That means EG is his strongest resource - listed first in order*
******* R E A D T H I S ! ! ********
When there is a discrepancy between these authorities, I have chosen between
them. More recent information from John McDermott, either through Jimpress
or EH releases, is usually given priority.
-
These two sentences are "a single statement".
And he specifically wrote it that he is *ensuring better accuracy*
by going with the latest-most up-to-date source ~vs~ old inacurate.
So don't even try to spin that this record is unreliable or biased or faulty
when everything stated shows quite to the contrary*.

>
> Aside from Electric Gypsy, which at least twice has Jimi recording at
> Mayfair on the 7th after the Zappa concert, both the Tony Brown Visual
> Documentary and Noel's diary (which was written at the time, not years later
> as some of his more doubtful tales were) states that there was a session at
> Mayfair on both the 6th and 7th.

Look Stack.. this is just about a no-brainer at this point.
For instance - just cut thru the fog and consult Garry Kilgren the engineer.
He was there the entire time they were taping BOTML July 6th.
DO YOU THINK HE MIGHT KNOW.!??
haha.!.


>
> There's also no "mistake in wording" about the single. EG has distinctly
> different sections for each song. The notes specifically refer to STP as the
> first released recording with wah-wah.

It's a complete OXY MORON.. a stupid statement
for the bladfaced fact that BOTML & STP-LSD are inseperable*.
RELEASED THE SAME INSTANT! -- on the exact same single.
That's precisely what good brother Marty-O was getting at
when he chorded -"..Is Gleebeck trying to tell us BOTML has no Wah.??.."
Sarcastically is what he meant.!. . *LOL*

>
>> One could claim EITHER song was the 1st with a Wah..pertaining to release.
>> Whatever.. there is no record of a BOTML Mayfair session on the 7th
>> nor any session on the 7th at all?.
>
> What you're using as a source is not the definitive "record" of anything, as
> I illustrated above. Considering Noel's diary is the best contemporary
> source on the matter of a seesion on the 7th that I've seen to date, I'm
> more inclined to go with his version, especially when claims to the contrary
> are admitted as simply choosing between various sources with no guarantee of
> accuracy.

You can satisfy yourself about any July 7th session by first
showing the session numbers#..times etc.,. yet, it's clear also
that starting a session at 11:31pm on July 6th is gonna *run over* to 7th.
Regardless of all that.. is the fact that Noel said Jimi got one
just before Comming to the USA.
Regardless of even that - WHAT in the world shows ANYWHERE??
that Hendrix didn't use a Wah-Wah of his own at Mayfair
right off the bat in the full day of July 6th tapeing BOTML.??.,?
That's just one thing that's so rediculous about it all.. ha!..


>> But it's time to get to the real NEWS FLASH* which is that Jimi
>> had already purchased a Wah-Wah Pedal* -the previous month, in June
>> and the purchase was made in the UK.
>>
>> AFAIC..that eliminates any chance that Zappa "introduced Jimi to wah-wah'.
>
> Assuming the attribution to Noel is accurate. You've dismissed far more
> concrete evidence in the past when it conflicted with one of your egg
> theories. That's the difference between us: I'm talking about likelihoods
> and possibilities based on all the available data, you're making unilateral
> dismissals based on one source that admits it picks and chooses and another
> that paraphrases Noel rather than quoting him directly.

NO-NO-NO!!.. there ya go again.. hAA!!.. spin-distort-upside down.
I'm FAR from going with "just Noel" but i do see his statement
as the last big ingrediant to dissolve any myth Zappa taught Jimi the Wah.
Starting with the *History of the Wah* and the fact that VOX
already had the Clyde McCoy-Wah out to the big boys starting in "66.
That's a full year before Jimi's at Mayfair tracking BOTML.

And a long line of facts that *WE*(MadDog/O-B-Wan) have layed out
that show that there was not a goddamn thing to show Zapppa
ever made any claims to either introducing jimi to Wah - nor being
ahead of Jimi in getting one. There's NOTHING there.

Then there's the problems with he never meets Zappa till AFTER
he has already layed down what goes on to be the actual release
of BOTML on July 6th. -- It's impossible for Zappa to have
had any hand in it cause he hadn't met him yet.

To the complete contrary -- there a shitload more that
gives credence to Noels remarks about Jimi getting one in the UK.

>
>> It also relegates any further speculations about Zappa letting him use
>> or otherwise "borrow" his VOX-Clyde McCoy to a mere possibility
>> that Jimi's personal Wah-Wah was not as good sounding*(inferior)
>> [..maybe the battery was dead..or it was in-op some other way..]
>> that*might*have made it possible as a reason for Jimi to "borrow"Zappa's.
>> Zappa never says "i loaned Jimi my VOX for(any)sessions"-let alone BOTML
>> so along with being inconsequential..if true at all.?? - Noel's on record
>> and lays all the speculation about Zappa aside.(Zappa even says himself
>> that he'd just gotten his Vox-Clyde McCoy wah *just* before he met Jimi.!)
>>
>> A smoking gun* directly from Noel :
>>
>> *Over the previous days, the Jimi Hendrix Experience had been recording
> "The
>> Burning Of The Midnight Lamp", Jimi's first song in which he used a
> Wah-Wah
>> pedal to great effect. According to Noel, Jimi had picked up this pedal in
>> England during June, just before the Experience set off for America.
>>
>> All the many quotes are found at this link :
>> http://www.thebignote.com/archived/some_more_pt_iii.php
>
> The most important quote, from Noel, is not there (only a paraphrasing of
> any statement he made on the subject.) However, it reminds me that one of
> the Noel interviews I've read may pertain to the purchasing of the wah-wah.
> When I have a chance I'll dig it out and see if I can find the reference.

The most important notes(pl) ARE there* - and you're ignoring them.
The author(Kees de Lange) states unequivocally - no arguments
that the JHE started recording BOTML the *preceding days* BEFORE
Zappa meets hendrix or any of the JHE. Try not ignoring that - it'll help*
That's immediately followed with the remarks by Noel-*Jimi Already had one*
* he got it in the UK -the month before- long BEFORE they meet Zappa*
That can't be passed by.


> Although... having checked a reference in Noel's autobiography, I notice he
> also claims the intro to "Burning" was inspired by his idea of playing a
> twelve-string through a wah-wah, which lies in stark contrast to the more
> accepted story that it was Jimi's experimenting with the harpsichord in
> Olympic's Studio A which inspired that part (and the song as a whole
> developed around that.)

This is what is known as a "neither here nor there" deal.
So Noel stated "inspired by an idea* to play a 12 string..etc."
Yeah??.. so what.?.. Jimi says nahhh -- i'll use my strat thanks ;)
Ask Gary Kilgren..was there a wah-wah or not on the 6th of July.?

>Given that there's no twelve-string on the tune but
> there is a harpsichord, and that the tune is credited solely to Hendrix, I'm
> more inclined to go with Jimi's version and be a bit skeptical of Noel's.

I'm not at all changed by that one way or another -in any way.
I don't see Noel's words as arguing against anything.
He's mentioning inspiration so what.

> It's possible the story about Jimi picking up a wah-wah in June was a later
> necessary embroidering of the tale by Noel, as he could hardly have used a
> wah-wah to work up a tune whose basic tracks were recorded the day before
> any member of the Experience got their hands on a wah-wah, could he?

Why in the hell would Noel "embroider anything"??.
AFAIC..that's even more rediculous.

> And of course one has to question, if Jimi indeed picked up a wah-wah back
> in June, why didn't he bring it with him to America?

But he DID according to Noel and the author Kees de Lange's statements.
He got one right before comming to America and used it on BOTML too*
I didn't miss that.. why do you miss that?
There's nothing by anyone to argue the contrary either.
So one had got to be propelled to go with that story. Makes perfect sense.

>He was planning an
> all-out sonic and visual onslaught at Monterey and made no attempt to either
> bring this new and valued piece of his arsenal with him or pick up a
> replacement in America, either prior to Monterey or in the weeks between the
> festival and his attending the Zappa concert? For someone who so obviously
> fell in love with the wah-wah once he did get his hands on it, it would be a
> bit odd...

First thing is - he brought his wah-wah with him, as Kees de Lange states.
And we've ascertained that Jimi had JUST DAYS before Monterey gotten one.
Which brings up the easiest explaination of all as to why it's not used
at Monterey Pop-- - he hadn't had time to explore it yet*.
And one has to remember-remember! .. they had decided upon a set
of already solid*trusted*successful* material that would have been
major stupid to now mess up trying to suddenly making Wah-experiments.
Equipment problems were also bad enough - it would also be dumb
to try to risk things adding what was yet a virtually untested piece.
No.. it's completely understandable to the WHY NOT use the wah..
and more beleivable because it was the smartest decision to be safe.
You have history to prove that the JHE didn't the added gimmick of Wah*
Jimi knew it would have it's day - didn't want to change the finely tuned.
And thinking of Monterey.. I'm damn glad he didn't unveil it because
he would have been labeled for too many gimmicks..etc.,.etc.
Perhaps Jimi was keen on that..he always said:
"..We don't do the things as gimmicks per se´- it's when we feel like it"
"Only when the feeling is there and we feel right about it - WANT to"

Like tonight.!!!
Happy New Year Stack*
3Defi


sluggo

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 10:07:00 AM12/31/03
to

> Although... having checked a reference in Noel's autobiography, I notice
he
> also claims the intro to "Burning" was inspired by his idea of playing a
> twelve-string through a wah-wah,

....i find this the funniest thing I have read in days...go back and listen
to She`s So fine..or Little Miss Strange , or any of Noel`s compositions
from Fat Mattress and I think you `ll decide real soon that his creative
glimmer was a short spark..good those songs are bad..Just the fact that Jimi
included them on two of the most important albums to ever be released in the
rock market should have sated Noel for two or three lifetimes...
now..
I`d like to hear more about the hand operated wah..this is the first time I
have ever heard about one of these..any more info ?..model , maker, pics
?...
thanks and happy new year cats
sluggo

ps..one of our politicians said yesterday in regards to the mad cow biz.."
You think when a bull sniffs a cows ass he wonders first whether shes
american or canadian ? "...


Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 9:57:20 AM12/31/03
to
3Defi says...

>*Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*

I'll step aside and become the casual observer here. Suffice to say there are
conflicting reports documented by the main players in these recordings. When
you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter all that much to me who did
what first. It matters, for sure, but we're talking about the development of
technique and expression - influence is surely a part of the mix. I'm coming
from the more organic perspective, thinking about what it must have been like to
be walking in those shoes and hearing with those ears, etc. It looks to me like
it's damn near impossible to come to a definitive conclusion given what's been
posted here. Like the man said himself:

"As you well know you just can't believe everything you see and hear, can you?"

So I'll follow his lead and also say:

"Now, if you'll excuse me, I must be on my way."

Marshall Stack

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 4:48:41 PM12/31/03
to

"3Defi" <King_Neptune@your_leige.com> wrote in message
news:BC1800A4.17563%King_Neptune@your_leige.com...

> >Marshall Stack bespake :
>
> First.. Happy New Year,. trying to ignore the BS rhetoric.
> *Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*
> There??.. does that make you feel better?
> How about we skip the barbs and strick to the points instead.

Hah! So typical of you to insult someone, then suggest skipping the barbs
before they respond in kind. How characteristically cowardly of you ("I'm
going to give you my best shot, but you can't hit back, okay?"

I didn't say anything about Easter Egg theories being ignorant. However,
since you broached the subject, let me give you a discourse on what ignorant
is:

Ignorant is someone who sees an Easter Egg in everything and allows no
possibility that he may be mind-fucking himself into seeing something that
wasn't intended (see your recent RAINY DAY anagram of ELECTRIC LADYLAND.
Nowhere in that discussion do you leave open the chance that it's just a
coincidence. Nope, it was 100% wholly intended by Jimi.

Ignorant is, when someone points out that you can't spell RAINY DAY with the
letters from ELECTRIC LADYLAND, copping a pompous attitude and acting like
Jimi himself expalined to you and only you that "it's like Scrabble, you can
cross over words across a single letter" and then immediately breaking this
"rule" by suggesting that LAY LADY LAY can be de-egged in the same fashion
(Hint: it can't)

Ignorant is constanly whining when someone corrects you on a blatant error
or points out a misspelling of a word you've given special E M P H A S I S
too, and then going ballistic when you think you spot them doing either.
Remember your ridiculous "It's spelled JEFFREY, asshole!" declaration? Of
course, the fact that you were wrong about that and never had the stones to
admit it is just another item in your sad legacy of holding others to a
higher standard than you hold yourself. You commit the same offense right
here:

Defi, if you were anyone else, I would assume you had been given enough
evidence in the course of our exchanges through the years to realize I am
several orders of magnitude more capable of deciphering the meaning of a
sentence than you. I fully understand what the author of the site stated.
However, in this case, he's apparently decided no session took place on the
7th because the latest source, John McDermott's Sessions, didn't list it.
However, there are a lot of dates missing from Sessions by virtue of the
fact that there's no info as to what happened on that particular date. The
whole point of McDermott's book is to recreate the atmosphere of a Hendrix
recording session - something that can't be done if there's no info or if a
particular session was simply a short two-hour overdub or mix (there are a
plethora of instances where McDermott's book omits sessions like these.)
Sessions doesn't claim to be definitive, but the author of the site has
apparently discounted Glebbeek, Brown, and even Redding (who was there and
had no reason to make up a session on the 7th that never took place) on the
basis that McDermott's work omits it. Not a knock on him as he clearly
doesn't intend anyone with an IQ above room temperature to take his list as
definitive either, but if you're going to squawk about "updates" and "better
accuracy" you may want to stop and think for once in your life. Are you
actually going to suggest that simply because a given work is more recent,
it's more accurate? What about the various works of Michael Fairchild? Would
you actually toss out the years of research Glebbeek and Brown have done
because Fairchild's work is more current? Plus, it's not like Glebbeek's
listing of sessions hasn't been updated since EG was published - ever heard
of Univibes? I'll guarantee a more recent listing of "Burning" has been
given there than in any of the works cited by the author of the page you're
treating like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I guess if we're going to trust Sessions implicitly, then "Love or
Confusion" was never recorded anywhere.

See, you're just proving that the view we've all formed of you over the
years just continues to prove true: You're incapable of analyzing
information critically. You either toss something out immediately if it
doesn't agree with your view or accept it without question if it does.

> >
> > Aside from Electric Gypsy, which at least twice has Jimi recording at
> > Mayfair on the 7th after the Zappa concert, both the Tony Brown Visual
> > Documentary and Noel's diary (which was written at the time, not years
later
> > as some of his more doubtful tales were) states that there was a session
at
> > Mayfair on both the 6th and 7th.
>
> Look Stack.. this is just about a no-brainer at this point.
> For instance - just cut thru the fog and consult Garry Kilgren the
engineer.
> He was there the entire time they were taping BOTML July 6th.
> DO YOU THINK HE MIGHT KNOW.!??
> haha.!.

I'd be glad to, give me his phone number.

> > There's also no "mistake in wording" about the single. EG has distinctly
> > different sections for each song. The notes specifically refer to STP as
the
> > first released recording with wah-wah.
>
> It's a complete OXY MORON.. a stupid statement
> for the bladfaced fact that BOTML & STP-LSD are inseperable*.
> RELEASED THE SAME INSTANT! -- on the exact same single.

No shit. Once again we see you recede to simply restating your previous
statement when you run out of ammo. The fact that you're dead wrong means
nothing to you. Let me repeat the sad truth which you are unable to counter:
Glebbeek follows his entry for EACH SONG with a series of notes on that song
alone. "Burning" is listed first in the chronology (as it was the "A" side)
and is followed by notes specifically pertaining to "Burning." "Stars" is
listed next with notes specifically pertaining to that song. This is how
Glebbeek works. He does the same with albums. If, as you are trying to make
it out, he was referring to the single, he would have included a separate
notes section following the release date and label info for the single
itself but preceding the sections for the songs. That's how Glebbeek works.
It's a style that is only confusing to people like you who are simply
speculating sight unseen. It's funny that you, who have probably never seen
the listings in the back of Electric Gypsy, are telling two guys who have
that they can't read correctly when it's apparent to anyone who's been
paying attention that either of us is light-years ahead of you when it comes
to reading comprehension.

> That's precisely what good brother Marty-O was getting at
> when he chorded -"..Is Gleebeck trying to tell us BOTML has no Wah.??.."
> Sarcastically is what he meant.!. . *LOL*

I fully understood what Martin meant. I only added that what I believe
Glebbeek was getting at was that he felt Jimi had used wah on "Stars" before
using it on "Burning." There's no question Glebbeek knows wah was used on
"Burning."

> >
> >> One could claim EITHER song was the 1st with a Wah..pertaining to
release.
> >> Whatever.. there is no record of a BOTML Mayfair session on the 7th
> >> nor any session on the 7th at all?.
> >
> > What you're using as a source is not the definitive "record" of
anything, as
> > I illustrated above. Considering Noel's diary is the best contemporary
> > source on the matter of a seesion on the 7th that I've seen to date, I'm
> > more inclined to go with his version, especially when claims to the
contrary
> > are admitted as simply choosing between various sources with no
guarantee of
> > accuracy.
>
> You can satisfy yourself about any July 7th session by first
> showing the session numbers#..times etc.,. yet, it's clear also
> that starting a session at 11:31pm on July 6th is gonna *run over* to 7th.

Once again your complete lack of knowledge of all things Jimi shines
through. A single session record is given when a session runs past midnight.
It's considered to have happened the day it began, not the day it ended.
Hell, this is probably the one thing that all sources (Sessions, Glebbeek,
Brown, Redding, etc.) agree on. Concert appearances are treated the same way
(you'll note that McDermott, who wrote the liner notes for Live at the
Fillmore East, constantly refers to the second BOG show as "12/31/69, second
show" even though it took place entirely after midnight.) If two separate
sessions are listed for the 6th and 7th, then it's because two separate
sessions occured.

> Regardless of all that.. is the fact that Noel said Jimi got one
> just before Comming to the USA.
> Regardless of even that - WHAT in the world shows ANYWHERE??
> that Hendrix didn't use a Wah-Wah of his own at Mayfair
> right off the bat in the full day of July 6th tapeing BOTML.??.,?
> That's just one thing that's so rediculous about it all.. ha!..

See, we're back to you holding others to a higher standard of proof than you
hold yourself. If any of your insane little fantasies required such extreme
measures of proof, you'd have to give up on all of them (but then, we've
seen that in your case, if something could be, it is. Unless you disagree
with it, in which case even Noel's mentioning the session in his diary at
the time and corroboration from two tireless researchers like Glebbeek and
Brown isn't good enough.)

And he's off on another "it absolutely happened this way" tear, folks!
Immediately after saying I mischaracterized your tendency to stick with one
theory that works for you and discounting all other possibilities, you
provide a sterling example proving me true. Redding, Brown, and Glebbeek all
say there was a session on the 7th following the Zappa concert. Brown (who
knows infinitely more about Jimi's day-to-day activities than you) states
it's probably the first time Jimi ever used a pedal wah and that the session
that evening was probably the first time he recorded with it. Jimi, who was
obviously knocked out by the wah, nevertheless didn't use one at Monterey.
But all of that is easily dismissed by you with, at best, only an equal
amount of evidence for your theory. Why? Because it's your theory and as
you've proven time and again, you are incapable of allowing for even the
possibility that you may be wrong about something.

> To the complete contrary -- there a shitload more that
> gives credence to Noels remarks about Jimi getting one in the UK.

No, most of it gives credence to the fact that such pedals EXISTED, not that
Jimi had one.

What was I saying about your inability to be analytical?

I didn't "pass it by." I explained how it may be inaccutate, but since your
memory retention is notorious for its non-existence, let's recap:

1) The session on the 6th was devoted to basic tracking for "Burning"
2) The session on the 7th was an overdub, prompted by Jimi's fascination
with the wah-wah.

> > Although... having checked a reference in Noel's autobiography, I notice
he
> > also claims the intro to "Burning" was inspired by his idea of playing a
> > twelve-string through a wah-wah, which lies in stark contrast to the
more
> > accepted story that it was Jimi's experimenting with the harpsichord in
> > Olympic's Studio A which inspired that part (and the song as a whole
> > developed around that.)
>
> This is what is known as a "neither here nor there" deal.
> So Noel stated "inspired by an idea* to play a 12 string..etc."
> Yeah??.. so what.?.. Jimi says nahhh -- i'll use my strat thanks ;)

So what? That's not the point at all. The point is that the fact that
harpsichord appears on the track backs up the story that Jimi developed the
tune around that and that Noel's story that the tune was derived from his
noodling with the 12-string is therefore a fabrication, which would have
directly led to his later claim that Jimi had picked up a wah earlier than
the 6th, since Hendrix and the Experience not using one before that
completely torpedoes Noel's claim that the wah was part of the inspiration
for the tune?

Have I connected the dots enough for you yet, professor?

> Ask Gary Kilgren..was there a wah-wah or not on the 6th of July.?

If I had him on speed-dial I'd call him in a second. No guarantee he'd
remember but at least it would be one less nitpick for you to fixate on.

> >Given that there's no twelve-string on the tune but
> > there is a harpsichord, and that the tune is credited solely to Hendrix,
I'm
> > more inclined to go with Jimi's version and be a bit skeptical of
Noel's.
>
> I'm not at all changed by that one way or another -in any way.

Of course not. It goes against your theory, so even if a recorded confession
by Redding appeared that stated he made the story up and that Jimi never
played a pedal wah before July 7th, you'd still be "not at all changed."

"Not at all changed" - that's the most honest description of yourself you've
ever given. Most people learn and grow. Defi merely finds new ways to
justify staying the same. Actually, even that's giving you too much credit.
You have one or two tired excuses and you actually believe people still
accept them when most of the time they've just gotten tired of trying to
break through your disinformation field.

> I don't see Noel's words as arguing against anything.
> He's mentioning inspiration so what.
>
> > It's possible the story about Jimi picking up a wah-wah in June was a
later
> > necessary embroidering of the tale by Noel, as he could hardly have used
a
> > wah-wah to work up a tune whose basic tracks were recorded the day
before
> > any member of the Experience got their hands on a wah-wah, could he?
>
> Why in the hell would Noel "embroider anything"??.
> AFAIC..that's even more rediculous.

Right. Forget that we've all spoken in the past about some of Noel's wilder
claims. Nope, the man spoke true about each and every thing that ever came
out of his mouth.

(Which leaves you in quite the uncomfortable position, seeing as how Noel is
one of the people claiming Hendrix recorded at Mayfair the night of the
7th... I don't have that quandary because I know his diary of events was
accurate. It was his later embroidering of those events I occasionally take
issue with.)

> > And of course one has to question, if Jimi indeed picked up a wah-wah
back
> > in June, why didn't he bring it with him to America?
>
> But he DID according to Noel and the author Kees de Lange's statements.

Stop exaggerating. de Lange's source is Noel. You're trying to act like
they're two independent observers.

> He got one right before comming to America and used it on BOTML too*
> I didn't miss that.. why do you miss that?

I didn't miss a thing. I would argue, in fact, that you're the only person
who read my post that would say that.

One more time:

1) The session on the 6th was devoted to basic tracking for "Burning"
2) The session on the 7th was an overdub, prompted by Jimi's fascination
with the wah-wah.

I'll even add, since it's likely to come up again:

3) Noel's story to the contrary was a necessary extension of his claim that
"Burning" was inspired by his own experiments with the wah-wah. Noel later
realized in order for that to be the case, the Experience needed to have a
wah earlier than the 7th, thus the story about Jimi picking one up in
England may have been a complete fabrication.

> There's nothing by anyone to argue the contrary either.
> So one had got to be propelled to go with that story. Makes perfect sense.

Keep telling yourself that. You have one story (a latter-day invention by
Noel) stating one thing, and everything else either stating something else
or being non-persuasive either way. Yet because you've chosen to believe one
thing, then that's it - end of story.

Oh please, that doesn't even pass the laugh test. Jimi wanted to make a
statement at Monterey, using every tool at his disposal. The look (tell me a
pink feather boa was necessary to get "Killing Floor" across), the attitude,
the destruction, the music, and whatever sounds he could wring out of the
guitar. Jimi wasn't completely new to wah, he'd used the hand-manipulated
version in the studio and would have instantly added it to his arsenal at
Monterey if he'd had one available. He had days to prepare and, having a
little more faith in Jimi than you seem to have when it's convenient, I have
no doubt he'd have incorporated wah into some of his songs with little
trouble. At the absolute very least, he'd have left it in the chain switched
off until the crescendo of "Wild Thing."


3Defi

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 5:04:59 PM12/31/03
to
>Mad Dog bespake :

> 3Defi says...
>
>> *Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*
>
> I'll step aside and become the casual observer here.

It appears my statement above has you puzzled or that you think
that it's embued with animosity - it's not*.
*"ignorant" simply means "a person choosing to ignore a fact/reality".
We are *ALL* ignorant from time-to-time, part of our human-ness.
So it's not anymore to "slam" Stack than his first *couched spin*
trying to relegate 'easter eggs'(specifically Hendrix's)
as (quote) .. "Your ..egg theories" which *ignores reality*.

Start with the title cut ARE..the EE(easter eggs) of 'reversed tracks'.
Then go to one of the greatest EE tunes of all time -"3rd SFTS"
Where anyone will find EE's that abound in every shape*speed*form*.
Easter Eggs are UN D E N I A B L E R E A L I T Y - F A C T****.

I'm not *couching any spin there*..unlike Stack's remark
which would like to leave you to beleive that EE's are nothing but theory*.
Just setting the record straight.
When one gets to the section in 3rdSFTS and hears Jimi say:
"Acid dropping - REALLY make me fly..." there's nothing left to theorize.
[let me know if you can't find that Mad Dog..no sweat ;0) ..]

>Suffice to say there are
> conflicting reports documented by the main players in these recordings. When
> you get right down to it, it doesn't really matter all that much to me who did
> what first. It matters, for sure, but we're talking about the development of
> technique and expression - influence is surely a part of the mix. I'm coming
> from the more organic perspective, thinking about what it must have been like
> to
> be walking in those shoes and hearing with those ears, etc. It looks to me
> like
> it's damn near impossible to come to a definitive conclusion given what's been
> posted here. Like the man said himself:

Yes..?.. like i said - the engineer certainly knows..and that Gary Kilgren.
He's bound to have talked about the sessions he ever did with Jimi
and i don't doubt for a second that Zappa introducing Jimi to a pedal-wah
is complete *urban myth*.

And aside that nobody wants to admit my "hard points" pertaining to Monterey
or any of the other points i've made - such as-"it's on Zappa THEORIST'S"
to show there's an iota of fact behind this*hunch*FZ introduced Jimi to Wah
Zappa's never claimed that - there's no proof of that - so SHOW US.!???
[not to you..MadDog,- but anyone purporting the bit- where are the facts?]

Now.!.... Let's DO take "your approach".. just try to put yourself there.
Let's examine that "Jimi wah-technique".... *Burning of the Midnight Lamp*
Yes...

As much or more than any of these salient things we've gone over..
- the "technique and expression" that is already present on BOTML
shows me that "after Monterey - before meeting Zappa"
Jimi had finally had the facility ..time..to develope his "Wah-language".
That he NOW could *encorporate wah-wah in NEW experience tunes*
HE WAS FORBIDDEN TO DO IT WITH THE OLD MATERIAL.

Thus comes BOTML and yes- beautifully wah-expressive/wah-technique
the kind of wah-signatures that NO WAY Zappa influences him.

Look MD.!??.. i think i saw a lot of guitarist's in this group..right??
Well i'm one that remembers "cutting my wah-teeth"- do YOU*?*?..?
How long did it take you to become as proficient as Jimi on BOTML.?
Did you learn such expression and technique as Jimi does in 24hrs..?
That was FA R-R-R from the case in my own wah-experience.
Took more like 24 DAYS.!!. . --24 WEEKS.! ! !. .*LOL* .;0)

Get the Bubbles,, James.!.
Happy New Year Everyone*
3Defi

Martin

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 7:44:32 PM12/31/03
to
I've found an article about "Burning of the Midnight Lamp" in UniVibes issue
37, dated December 2000. Here's an abstract.

London, 9 May 1967
The Jimi Hendrix Experience recorded a demo of "Burning of the Midnight
Lamp" in Olympic Studios. the demo, released on THE JIMI HENDRIX EXPERIENCE
(2000) 4-CD box set features Jimi on harpsichord, Noel on bass, and Mitch on
drums. On this short demo there are no vocals or guitar.

According to the liner notes written by John McDermott, in THE JIMI HENDRIX
EXPERIENCE box, "Intrigued by the harpsichord stored in Olympic's vast
Studio A, Jimi climbed behind the instrument and began to develop 'Burning
of the Midnight Lamp.' This is the first known recording of the song.

Los Angeles, 28 to 30 June 1967
The JHE next recorded "Burning..." in L.A. during a session on 29 June 1967,
1pm to 9pm, with Chas as producer. Noel Redding noted in his diary for that
day that the experience did a "new number, I played 12-string with wah-wah."

In his book ARE YOU EXPERIENCED? Noel states that he "became intrigued by
the idea of playing a twelve-string through a Wha-Wha pedal, and the idea
became the idea to Burning of the Midnight Lamp."

On 29 and 30 June 1967, the JHE apparently did nothing else for the
"Burning..." recording. Noel Redding wrote down for 29 June "Nothing for us,
just vocals" and for 30 June "Not recording, did some mixing."

Subsequently, the "Burning..." take(s) recorded in June 1967 were scrapped
because "Jimi had given up in despair at the poor results." Besides, the
song needed lyrics.

New York City, July 1967
Noel Redding noted in his diary for 6 July 1967: "Recorded new single
again." The following day Noel wrote "Finished number." Finally, on 20 July
Noel noted in his diary that they had "mixed the number." All these sessions
took place at the Mayfair Recording Studio, Inc., in New York.

3Defi

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 8:49:20 PM12/31/03
to
Thanks Martin.. that all confirms my beleif on the various matters
and shows clearly that Zappa did not introduced Jimi to paddle-wah.
That bit is an urban myth and nothing more, born from
misinterpreted statements by Frank and vague cloudy statements
about Hendrix "having borrowed" a wah-wah pedal from Zappa.

We know that on the 7th Jimi meets Frank at the Garrick theatre
and that he also plays with Frank's wah-wah for a snip - so what.!?
Jimi did that with 100's of musicians and bands.

I've even been the first to suggest-*easily imagine*that since
Franks positively states he owned a VOX-Clyde McCoy unit..the BEST!!
That Jimi certainly was impressed with -- the QUALITY of the VOX*
If you just close your eyes and see the movie, Jimi is smiling at Frank
and say; "..HO-HO-BABY.!!!.. this Vox is outta site MAN!! Can i Borrow it??"
When Jimi did borrow Zappa's VOX.. is unknown - *if* he infact DID.
Supposing Jimi even did borrow Franks wah..
What he used it for - studio or practice..or at home..is speculation.

Jimi was hip to wah-wah's all along.. starting with that hand-wah thing
used on "I Don't Live Today". The VOX Clyde McCoy's were
already on the market at the time it was recorded but like anything
it takes some time for distribution,marketing, etc. ..and that's why
most wah-wah's weren't seen until "67.
Noel says Jimi got one before they came to the USA..late May*
or the first part of June. Then you have Noel stating outright
on June 28 to 30th that He played a wah-wah.
Does anyone in their right mind really think that Jimi wouldn't
have known Noel was using a Wah-Wah.???
That Jimi himself wasn't right then FULLY hip to Peddle-Wah-wah's.???

Case Closed* - good work O-B-WAN ;0)
May the Force be With You ALL of 2 0 0 4 ! ! ! !..
3Defi

>Martin bespake :

Mad Dog

unread,
Dec 31, 2003, 10:01:14 PM12/31/03
to
3Defi says...

>>Mad Dog bespake :


>>I'll step aside and become the casual observer here.

>It appears my statement above has you puzzled or that you think
>that it's embued with animosity - it's not*.

Not puzzled in the least. I just left the egg bit in my reply because to me it
suggested that you and Marshall were headed into a flame war that I had no
interest in trying to yell my way into. I'm not interested in trying to change
what anyone believes. There are documents out there that are in conflict and
since this isn't the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna bother trying to build an
airtight case. It simply isn't worth the effort because, at the end of the day,
as Tom Petty said: "You believe what you wanna believe". And I'm not putting
you down for that. But I also won't bother trying to sway your opinion - at
least not at this time. I know I read something in the last 6 months relating
to Frank and Jimi and if I stumble across it, I'll post it, but I've spent way
too much time this week trying to dredge it up and it's not turned up. I read
quite a bit and there's no way I'm going to do a page by page search through
20,000 pages. I'm just too busy to dig it up. Besides, it's just someone's
written word - you can choose not to believe it too.

>and i don't doubt for a second that Zappa introducing Jimi to a pedal-wah
>is complete *urban myth*.

I wasn't there, so I'm not certain of the facts. And if I was there, high as
they all reportedly were, I might even doubt my own version of the facts.

>Look MD.!??.. i think i saw a lot of guitarist's in this group..right??
>Well i'm one that remembers "cutting my wah-teeth"- do YOU*?*?..?
>How long did it take you to become as proficient as Jimi on BOTML.?
>Did you learn such expression and technique as Jimi does in 24hrs..?

I've never made any claims here or elsewhere about my proficiency on guitar.
And I certainly would not pretend to compare myself in any way to Jimi. That's
fuckin' blasphemy, man. Anyway, if this was just a flame attempt on your part,
you'll have to turn the heat up quite a bit more to get past my shields. In
fact, it feels kinda cold 'round here right now.

3Defi

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 2:32:17 AM1/1/04
to
>Mad Dog bespake :

> 3Defi says...
>
>>> Mad Dog bespake :
>
>>> I'll step aside and become the casual observer here.
>
>> It appears my statement above has you puzzled or that you think
>> that it's embued with animosity - it's not*.
>
> Not puzzled in the least. I just left the egg bit in my reply because to me
> it
> suggested that you and Marshall were headed into a flame war

You guessed wrong, Mad Dog - i purposely did not flame Stack in my reply.
I DID show him to debate the points- with the Best of Goodwill for 2004*
Stack has ignored that goodwill and decided to become
the "burning wick of the midnight lamp" - FLAME-FLAME-FLAME..same old crap.
That's not my action anymore - i won't engage the insults.

>I'm not interested in trying to change
> what anyone believes. There are documents out there that are in conflict and
> since this isn't the Supreme Court, I'm not gonna bother trying to build an
> airtight case. It simply isn't worth the effort because, at the end of the

> as Tom Petty said: "You believe what you wanna believe". And I'm not putting
> you down for that.

Well.. there's been several times that you've displayed mistaking my words.
here's an example that i pased over re-explaining to you -but will now.
> > 3Defi says...


>> Yet..all things taken into account Jimi had to be pleased with the progress.

> Mad Dog bespake :


> Well, I think the songs are damn fine. That had to feel good, even if, as he
> sometimes said, he wasn't always getting exactly the sound/feel he wanted.

I was talking about how Jimi must have felt about his progress in *NYC*.
How you misconstrued that into talking about "the outcome of AYE songs"???
That's just one example of you taking something i intimated incorrectly
and several more instances you have imagined that i was talking about you
when i was not - and it could be seen clearly in my statements both before
and afterward that i was"talking about other people"or"people in general".

AFAIK..remember??.. these bits about Zappa's wah-wah etc.
were first touched on by yourself by incorrectly mentioning
that *some people say* that Hendrix had help getting his NYC chops"66
largely from hanging with Zappa at the Garrich.
[That's where you first mention jimi played his wah-wah ..*TRUE*
and the bit about setting up stage monitors correctly..*could be*]
Stack enters at that point to correct only that it's "67 - *not "66.

This was also something Stack pointed out to you.
The fact that Jimi was already a major star and the Garrick was after
the JHE had already made their mark in history - including Monterey.
And it's there that Stack went a guitar-bridge too far..making the claim
quote Stack:


> Jimi also used a handcranked wah-wah prior to meeting or seeing Zappa,
>"but it was indeed Zappa who introduced Jimi to the pedal version"

Anyway.. ho hum ;)
like any good Jimi devotee same as Martin O' and others -pursued this.
The first thing occurring just off the top of my head was not remembering
any wah-wah work on AYE.. and inquired later in the thread exactly where?

Then ofcourse Stack's embellishment on your statement
from "Zappa let Jimi play his wah-wah.." to Stack's insistance
"Zappa literally introduced Jimi to the pedal-wah..".

Since there isn't a single iota supporting that last claim of Stack's
it's just natural that Hendrix fans are going to ask for the proof of that.
My questioning that claim is what lots of Jimi fans would like to know too.
My replies to what was fact and what is not fact, is no call for flames.

I haven't flamed anyone..*sought* opinions yes - the same as you
saying"..just think if Jimi.. etc.,.et,.al.."--that's seeking opinions.
I don't like this word *sway* - that's a nasty word..derogatory.
I'm not out to SWAY anyone least of all Mad Dog.
I'm the person said - "ask Kilgren.. ask Mitchell - he'd know".
I wish to set the record straight - not be vague trying to "sway".

Martin O's post sets the record straight- Stack is wrong- end of story.
--
One closing point - Why do you take such rediculous offense on this.??
Why were you compelled to end witha flame towards my feet.?
>Mad Dog rails:


> And I certainly would not pretend to compare myself in any way to Jimi.
> That's fuckin' blasphemy, man.

I beg to differ,..a simple comparison in thoughts - openly wondering?
how long it took Jimi as opposed to my own experience to be good at wah
is not an insult to Jimi in any way/shape/form - and Jimi never ever
said he was any higher or better or anything than me or anyone else.
Jimi wouldn't misunderstand that- why do you here? That's troubling?

> more MD rumbling:


>Anyway, if this was just a flame attempt on your part,

It's clear that i never flamed you Mad Dog - this comment is undeserved.
Infact.. I've repeatedly toasted you well to the new year 2004*
If you want to discard that goodwill & kindness in the trash bin like Stack
that's your choice that i won't pretend to understand,but be dissapointed.

Oh Well then?. .HNY*
3Defi

Mad Dog

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 11:56:17 AM1/1/04
to
3Defi says...

>You guessed wrong, Mad Dog - i purposely did not flame Stack in my reply.

Flames are like beauty: they exist in the ears, eyes and minds of the beholders.
I saw that you tossed out a peace fig, but you also wrote things that looked to
me to clearly be flames:

>>>First.. Happy New Year,. trying to ignore the BS rhetoric.

>>>*Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*

And:

>>>It's a complete OXY MORON.. a stupid statement

Note that I'm not judging you or Stack on this. He seemed to be clearly flaming
you but he'd need to speak to his intent. Flames don't bother me much and I've
done my share over the years. So I'm not taking sides here.

>I DID show him to debate the points- with the Best of Goodwill for 2004*
>Stack has ignored that goodwill and decided to become
>the "burning wick of the midnight lamp" - FLAME-FLAME-FLAME..same old crap.
>That's not my action anymore - i won't engage the insults.

Your intention might not be to insult, but my perception or Stack's perception
might be different. I saw your above words as insults, but to me it was no big
deal. I responded by saying I would step aside and, after this post, that's
what I intend to do. I don't see that I have anything else to say that would
bring any value or resolution to the topic.

>That's just one example of you taking something i intimated incorrectly
>and several more instances you have imagined that i was talking about you
>when i was not - and it could be seen clearly in my statements both before
>and afterward that i was"talking about other people"or"people in general".

No, maybe I didn't articulate clearly, but I wasn't taking things personally.
It's still fair for me to reply to things you have said to other people, or are
there exclusionary Usenet reply rules I don't know about?



> AFAIK..remember??.. these bits about Zappa's wah-wah etc.
>were first touched on by yourself by incorrectly mentioning
>that *some people say* that Hendrix had help getting his NYC chops"66
>largely from hanging with Zappa at the Garrich.

That's not exactly what I said, which was:

*It's not like he went through some huge transformation during
*the plane flight. More than one person has observed that he had
*all his chops by mid-66. Some folks say that a key part of the
*puzzle was hanging with Zappa at the Garrick Theater. Frank
*supposedly let Jimi play theough his Wah-Wah and showed him how
*to set a monitor up right to make it easier to control feedback.

The point I'm making here is the distinction between "largely from hanging with"
and "key part of the puzzle". I'm not about to try to classify Jimi as the kind
of musician that wasn't into the hardware or the tweaks side of thing. It seems
to me that he had visions of sounds and the tools were the means to an end.
Frank seemed to be a little more tools oriented, with an attitude of: "Let's see
what we can do with this." But Frank had always been a stickler for sound
quality, both in the studio and live, to an almost audiophile kind of level.
Jimi had the same sort of focus, but I haven't read anything that leads me to
believe he was into it at the same level.

So, when I've read about their first meetings, the wah-wah issue, feedback,
etc., I've wondered if Jimi heard the quality of Frank's live sound and knew he
had to improve his setup. I'm still pouring over in my mind where I read about
this and am wondering if I got it off the web. I read some stuff recently from
interviews of members of the early Mothers and maybe it was there. But I have
this crystal clear memory of someone talking about how Frank told Jimi about
controlling feedback with a monitor positioned at the front of the stage. If my
memory is correct, he talked about running the feed to that monitor speaker
through an EQ, used as a bandpass filter.

>Since there isn't a single iota supporting that last claim of Stack's
>it's just natural that Hendrix fans are going to ask for the proof of that.
>My questioning that claim is what lots of Jimi fans would like to know too.

That's the correct perspective, but again, I'm the type that believes real proof
is hard to come by. Engineer's records are great, but I don't consider them
bomb-proof. Redding's notes are also worth consideration, but I personally
temper everything he had to say about the Experience because he had an axe to
grind and in some cases, I disagree with his conclusions. As an example, he
made some fairly sweeping and disparaging remarks about the Winterland shows.
The music itself may not be uniformly excellent, but in my opinion, there is
some excellent playing there, some true gems. Having been in strained work
environments myself, I know how much mood affects perception. Noel's claim of
the wah'ed 12 string conception bit doesn't sound like a simple interpretive
mistake, but it's possible it was a component of the sour grapes that he (in my
opinion, very deservedly) displayed numerous times. The point of this is that
there is controversy and each of us will prioritize the points of view based
upon our own trust in the author.

>I don't like this word *sway* - that's a nasty word..derogatory.

There was no derogatory intention on my part. My point is that you are
passionate in your beliefs and anything short of a video shot live at the
Garrick, the studio, etc., is unlikely to cause you to change your conclusions.
That's not a put-down, just a generalized observation based on decades of debate
experience on my part.

>Martin O's post sets the record straight- Stack is wrong- end of story.

I just don't see it as being that simple.

>One closing point - Why do you take such rediculous offense on this.??

I have yet to be offended on this newsgroup. Period.

>Why were you compelled to end witha flame towards my feet.?
>>Mad Dog rails:
>> And I certainly would not pretend to compare myself in any way to Jimi.
>> That's fuckin' blasphemy, man.

That was no flame. This thread wasn't at all about how anything to do with my
ability to learn playing technique. You brought that in out of the blue. To
me, it smelled of a flame, but my point was that it wasn't blatant enough for me
to take it personally. It seemed odd and out of context, so I probed.

>I beg to differ,..a simple comparison in thoughts - openly wondering?
>how long it took Jimi as opposed to my own experience to be good at wah
>is not an insult to Jimi in any way/shape/form - and Jimi never ever
>said he was any higher or better or anything than me or anyone else.
>Jimi wouldn't misunderstand that- why do you here? That's troubling?

You missed my point, which was, for one as lowly as myself to compare my
learning ability to his would have been a joke. I wasn't commenting on your
learning ability or any comparisons you might make. I was using what is called
self-depreciation and the intent was levity.

>It's clear that i never flamed you Mad Dog - this comment is undeserved.

See above. The written word is readily misinterpreted and I don't think I
accused you of anything. I asked the question because, like I said, the tangent
you took looked to be totally out of context. It seemed to have no bearing on
the history.

>Infact.. I've repeatedly toasted you well to the new year 2004*
>If you want to discard that goodwill & kindness in the trash bin like Stack
>that's your choice that i won't pretend to understand,but be dissapointed.

And I'll again say: Happy New Year. I for one hope for '04 to be a fuck of alot
better than '03. Maybe I'll even learn to write such that people actually
understand me. Probably not - too much British blood in these veins.

Signing off this one, unless I can find the reference.

3Defi

unread,
Jan 1, 2004, 3:36:50 PM1/1/04
to
>Mad Dog bespake :
The first thing i'll say to all of your replies here is bullshit*

>
>> You guessed wrong, Mad Dog - i purposely did not flame Stack in my reply.
>
> Flames are like beauty: they exist in the ears, eyes and minds of the
> beholders.
> I saw that you tossed out a peace fig, but you also wrote things that looked
> to
> me to clearly be flames:
>
>>>> First.. Happy New Year,. trying to ignore the BS rhetoric.
>>>> *Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*

First on this-- was that i specifically replied to Stacks initial flame
by returning to him "" *HIS* trash in kind* "" -the moment i typed it.
It was Stack that INITIATED the insult*with his snipng
BULLSHIT comment ".. Your egg-theories..- - -.."and i was addresing that.

This has ALL been fully explained in triplicate *previous* to
what is now your most lacking reply.. lacking everything
especially logic. For it's clear that i was trying to quelm Stacks insults
reminding some COMMON SENSE to him about the pitfalls of ignorance.

I stand by that line -


" *Easter Eggs* are only theory in an *ignorant person's mind*

and it applies to everyone.
But that you are incapable of admitting what was actually "my plea"
for Stack to forget trashing up the place with BS flames
then there's definitely a major malfunction in your logic system.

ANother thing on that bit,,Mad Dog - i don't care one damn bit
for you to *stir pots* by snipping and selecting only portions of my words.
The statement i made was *preceded* and *immediately followed*
with goodwill the latter of which reads :


"How about we skip the barbs and strick to the points instead."

That can be nothing other than a call for "civility and friendly debate".

I didn't do as Stack did running amock ranting and flaming -on & on & on!
To the contrary - just the opposite*
and that's crystal slear from the start.

I find all your comments to that subject.. frankly facitious,,Mad Dog.
..moving on.


> And:
>
>>>> It's a complete OXY MORON.. a stupid statement

My statement here goes to Glebbeek's boner
'the Glebbeek statement that STP-LSD was before BOTML in WAH'.
That's no afront to ANYONE certainly not Stack*
If it was meant as an insult it would be to Glebbeek-which it is not*]

The exact same thing applied about this comment also
it was fully explained in my following pertaining to Martin O's post.
Insult to Stack?? -- that's utter bullshit.

How *you* miss that is not beleivable.. it's more facitiousness.

> Note that I'm not judging you or Stack on this. He seemed to be clearly
> flaming
> you but he'd need to speak to his intent. Flames don't bother me much and
> I've
> done my share over the years. So I'm not taking sides here.

Hogwash.*

>
>> I DID show him to debate the points- with the Best of Goodwill for 2004*
>> Stack has ignored that goodwill and decided to become
>> the "burning wick of the midnight lamp" - FLAME-FLAME-FLAME..same old crap.
>> That's not my action anymore - i won't engage the insults.
>
> Your intention might not be to insult, but my perception or Stack's perception
> might be different. I saw your above words as insults,

Then you either have major comprehension malf - or as stated
this is more continuous facitiousness. More the latter.

> I responded by saying I would step aside and, after this post, that's
> what I intend to do. I don't see that I have anything else to say that would
> bring any value or resolution to the topic.

But you decided to exerpt *for no other reason than to stir the pot*
one line from a two page reply by me - our of context, and making
an air of someone that "who was just hoping for a flame show".
That's behaviour is quite deplorable.


>
>> That's just one example of you taking something i intimated incorrectly
>> and several more instances you have imagined that i was talking about you
>> when i was not - and it could be seen clearly in my statements both before
>> and afterward that i was"talking about other people"or"people in general".
>
> No, maybe I didn't articulate clearly, but I wasn't taking things personally.
> It's still fair for me to reply to things you have said to other people, or
> are
> there exclusionary Usenet reply rules I don't know about?

Not in the way that you did. Your replies were patently defensive
to only yourself - and couched as if i had *accused you or something*.
That fails logic and isn't right.

>
>> AFAIK..remember??.. these bits about Zappa's wah-wah etc.
>> were first touched on by yourself by incorrectly mentioning
>> that *some people say* that Hendrix had help getting his NYC chops"66
>> largely from hanging with Zappa at the Garrich.
>
> That's not exactly what I said, which was:

It's basically what you said - not a perfect quote, yet there
is zero difference to " some people'..vs.."some folks"
cut me some slack Jack.


>
> *It's not like he went through some huge transformation during
> *the plane flight. More than one person has observed that he had
> *all his chops by mid-66. Some folks say that a key part of the
> *puzzle was hanging with Zappa at the Garrick Theater. Frank
> *supposedly let Jimi play theough his Wah-Wah and showed him how
> *to set a monitor up right to make it easier to control feedback.
>
> The point I'm making here is the distinction between "largely from hanging
> with"
> and "key part of the puzzle". I'm not about to try to classify Jimi as the
> kind
> of musician that wasn't into the hardware or the tweaks side of thing. It
> seems
> to me that he had visions of sounds and the tools were the means to an end.
> Frank seemed to be a little more tools oriented, with an attitude of: "Let's
> see
> what we can do with this." But Frank had always been a stickler for sound
> quality, both in the studio and live, to an almost audiophile kind of level.
> Jimi had the same sort of focus, but I haven't read anything that leads me to
> believe he was into it at the same level.

No one spoke to this.. or argued it??


>
> So, when I've read about their first meetings, the wah-wah issue, feedback,
> etc., I've wondered if Jimi heard the quality of Frank's live sound and knew
> he
> had to improve his setup. I'm still pouring over in my mind where I read
> about
> this and am wondering if I got it off the web. I read some stuff recently
> from
> interviews of members of the early Mothers and maybe it was there. But I have
> this crystal clear memory of someone talking about how Frank told Jimi about
> controlling feedback with a monitor positioned at the front of the stage. If
> my
> memory is correct, he talked about running the feed to that monitor speaker
> through an EQ, used as a bandpass filter.

Your'e evading the point that Hendrix was already a star before Zappa.
The same applies to his basic styles.. etc., ALL before meeting Zappa.
You had alledged that "according to SOME FOLKS"- Zappa had
been a key ingrediant to Jimi's PRE-Britain formation.

That was shown to be resoundingly incorrect* - yet you pass that right by.


>
>> Since there isn't a single iota supporting that last claim of Stack's
>> it's just natural that Hendrix fans are going to ask for the proof of that.
>> My questioning that claim is what lots of Jimi fans would like to know too.
>
> That's the correct perspective, but again, I'm the type that believes real
> proof

What a DOUBLY facitious retort from you.. it's just the opposite*

It's the "real proof" that was intoned to Stack(and you) to serve up.
My contention still,, is that you both need to have the fact
before saying "Zappa introduced Jimi to the pedal wah".. not just
a bushel fuill of " some folks say.." and " because i imagine.." etc.

Show *ME* the money.!.

> is hard to come by. Engineer's records are great, but I don't consider them
> bomb-proof. Redding's notes are also worth consideration, but I personally
> temper everything he had to say about the Experience because he had an axe to
> grind and in some cases, I disagree with his conclusions. As an example, he
> made some fairly sweeping and disparaging remarks about the Winterland shows.
> The music itself may not be uniformly excellent, but in my opinion, there is
> some excellent playing there, some true gems. Having been in strained work
> environments myself, I know how much mood affects perception. Noel's claim of
> the wah'ed 12 string conception bit doesn't sound like a simple interpretive
> mistake, but it's possible it was a component of the sour grapes that he (in
> my
> opinion, very deservedly) displayed numerous times. The point of this is that
> there is controversy and each of us will prioritize the points of view based
> upon our own trust in the author.
>
>> I don't like this word *sway* - that's a nasty word..derogatory.
>
> There was no derogatory intention on my part.

Then you'd best groom your vocabulary definitions real good,,Mad Dog.

>My point is that you are
> passionate in your beliefs and anything short of a video shot live at the
> Garrick, the studio, etc., is unlikely to cause you to change yourconclusions

This is nonsense - We've simply asked Stack/You to provide "that proof".
That *NO ONE*(Stack or You) can make such a leap to conclusion
without having the "definitive" articles.

I'm not in the group the people making that 'leap beyond logic'.
That's perfectly clear.

> That's not a put-down, just a generalized observation based on decades of

> debateexperience on my part.


>
>> Martin O's post sets the record straight- Stack is wrong- end of story.
>
> I just don't see it as being that simple.

Well .. that's no surprize in the way you like ignoring facts.

>
>> One closing point - Why do you take such rediculous offense on this.??
>
> I have yet to be offended on this newsgroup. Period.
>
>> Why were you compelled to end witha flame towards my feet.?
>>> Mad Dog rails:
>>> And I certainly would not pretend to compare myself in any way to Jimi.
>>> That's fuckin' blasphemy, man.
>
> That was no flame. This thread wasn't at all about how anything to do with my
> ability to learn playing technique. You brought that in out of the blue. To
> me, it smelled of a flame, but my point was that it wasn't blatant enough for
> me
> to take it personally. It seemed odd and out of context, so I probed.
>
>> I beg to differ,..a simple comparison in thoughts - openly wondering?
>> how long it took Jimi as opposed to my own experience to be good at wah
>> is not an insult to Jimi in any way/shape/form - and Jimi never ever
>> said he was any higher or better or anything than me or anyone else.
>> Jimi wouldn't misunderstand that- why do you here? That's troubling?
>
> You missed my point, which was, for one as lowly as myself to compare my
> learning ability to his would have been a joke. I wasn't commenting on your
> learning ability or any comparisons you might make. I was using what is
> called
> self-depreciation and the intent was levity.

This more than anything you've said is utter bullshit.. *LOL*
You made what is easily identifiable and called " a kneejerk reply".
You couched your flame to me in your personal set of Jimi-religeon.
You judgementalized me & my comments as "fucking blasphemy,man*".

The man you are throwing that scolding at - is none other than me.
Your stooping to a flame moralistically over me
pertaining to my openly wondering how long it took Jimi
to master the Wah-Wah in comparrison to each of Us/myself*.

>
>> It's clear that i never flamed you Mad Dog - this comment is undeserved.
>
> See above. The written word is readily misinterpreted and I don't think I
> accused you of anything. I asked the question because, like I said, the
> tangent

This is another 'derogatory term" ...*tangent* ..that's enflaming.
You're being facitious to the bitter end.

> you took looked to be totally out of context. It seemed to have no bearing on
> the history.

History??. .how about facts* - that was precisely what i suggested
that we take a break from momentarilly and "go with *Your tact"-Which was
"""""..to put yourself in THEIR shoes around those times..etc.""""
""""...to try to imagine what things were like thru THEIR eyes..""""
Thus my switching the nature of comment to
*imagine how long it took for Hendrix to master the Wah-Wah.??*
TO DO THAT.! -- one need only look back on their *OWN* learning curve.

You went right off the rickter scale interpreting that.??
I find that troublesome .. and still do,, except for your facitiousness.

>
>> Infact.. I've repeatedly toasted you well to the new year 2004*
>> If you want to discard that goodwill & kindness in the trash bin like Stack
>> that's your choice that i won't pretend to understand,but be dissapointed.
>
> And I'll again say: Happy New Year. I for one hope for '04 to be a fuck of
> alot
> better than '03. Maybe I'll even learn to write such that people actually
> understand me. Probably not - too much British blood in these veins.
>
> Signing off this one, unless I can find the reference.
>

Pass that by Mad Dog .. get some real proof,, will ya?
Write Mitch.. or Gary Kilgren,or just face the facts already shown.

Take it any way you want it - you have already,
3Defi

Marshall Stack

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 2:36:58 PM1/2/04
to

"Martin" <martin.o_brien@[no-spam]which.net> wrote in message
news:84KIb.59715$kC1....@fe09.private.usenetserver.com...

Sounds to me like more proof that Noel and the wah-wah had nothing to do
with the inspiration for "Burning." Listen to the May '67 take on the box
set. Very similar intro arrangement to the final track, and all done a month
before (even by Noel's account) the Experience got hold of a wah-wah pedal
which is supposedly what inspired Noel to come up with that arrangement
(funny that, for someone who was the most money-obsessed of the Experience,
Neol never made a stink about not getting at least a co-writer credit for
the track.)

I don't think it's an accident that Noel's book omits the May sessions for
"Burning." Once again he's manipulating time to fit his story that the
song's origins lay in his experiments with the wah-wah.

Plus, AYE? itself doesn't contain the detailed diary entry that the fourth
paragraph illustrates. Only the sessions and the fact that "Burning" was
worked on are mentioned, nothing about a wah-wah. Once again, it's
impossible to say how much of the details were written at the time and how
much is latter-day embroidering.


Marshall Stack

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 3:04:16 PM1/2/04
to

"Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bt1jf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> 3Defi says...

>
> >Martin O's post sets the record straight- Stack is wrong- end of story.
>
> I just don't see it as being that simple.

Of course not. Only someone as simple as defi continues to see everything in
black and white. More specifically, anything he believes is right and
anything anyone else believes is wrong. This is what happens when an
antisocial burnout who's been sitting alone in a basement for thirty years
finds his way onto Usenet. Suddenly his inability to form a constructive
argument to back up his beliefs becomes a serious liability and, rather than
seize any of the many opportunities he's been given to grow up and learn to
debate like an adult, he'd rather stomp his feet and keep restating his same
comments over and over than adapt or reject his position when the facts show
it to be less than airtight.

The fact is, for all defi's whining, he still only has Noel's word on the
subject that Jimi bought a wah-wah in June of '67. Unfortunately, this is
the same Noel whose statements about the wah-wah inspiring the arrangement
for "Burning" cannot be true, since the Experience began recording the song
(with the same intro arrangement) over a month before the group got their
hands on a wah-wah even by Noel's story. To defi this isn't a contradiction.
But again, that's purely due to the fact that for thirty years he didn't
have to back up any of his statements with proof as he couldn't pay anyone
to share air with him long enough to question any of his lunatic theories.

In the end, I'm still more inclined to believe the story of Zappa
introducing Hendrix to the wah. All we really have to suggest otherwise is
Noel's story, which could easily be a made-up tale to back up his claim that
he came up with the intro to "Burning." I wonder how much he was sweating
every time he gave an interview after the box set came out. Imagine the look
on his face if asked, "So Noel, how's it possible that your experiments with
the wah-wah in June of '67 inspired the intro arrangement that was recorded
nearly verbatim (sans wah, of course) in May of '67? Take as long as you
want, this should be fun..."

Whether there is more to be learned about the story and the Zappa connection
ultimately proves to be false or not, it really doesn't matter to me. I've
been wrong before about far more important things. But looking at the
timestamps in this thread, I can only laugh at how defi was once again
sitting home on New Year's Eve trolling Usenet while I was out having the
time of my life. For about a twenty-four hour period there you couldn't have
gotten me within a country mile of my computer unless you had a gun, and
even then it might have been a chore. Defi, on the other hand, can't go
twenty-four hours without spreading his garbage on Usenet (often he can't go
an hour - notice how quick he replies to each and every post that finds its
way here? He truly has nothing else going on in his life.) Yes, defi hass
finally found a captive audience for his rambling - on a forum that's not
likely to have him banned as has happened on (at least) nine public forums
in the past. Lucky us (though at least we still have the choice of whether
to click on his posts or not. This is the first time I've bothered in a
while, and may be the last for a while longer.)

I applaud your efforts to deal with our problem child in a civil manner, Mad
Dog (though you'll note that true to form he's seeing offense in every
statement of yours now since you're a "traitor" who's not backing him up.)
I'm sure once you've been here a while and been on the receiving end of
enough of his paranoid accusations, you'll give up on any inclination to
treat him with kid gloves. Straight and brutal seems to be the only method
of communication he understands.


3Defi

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 7:23:59 PM1/2/04
to
>Marshall Stack bespake :

>
> "Mad Dog" <mad6...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:bt1jf...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> 3Defi says...
>>
>>> Martin O's post sets the record straight- Stack is wrong- end of story.
>>
>> I just don't see it as being that simple.
>
> Of course not. Only someone as simple as defi continues to see everything in
> black and white. More specifically, anything he believes is right and
> anything anyone else believes is wrong. This is what happens when an
> antisocial burnout who's been sitting alone in a basement for thirty years
> finds his way onto Usenet.

This is trolling that's totally out-of-bounds*-this is what we're tired of.
End your sick obssessions to mount nothing but personal attacks.

>Suddenly his inability to form a constructive
> argument to back up his beliefs becomes a serious liability and, rather than
> seize any of the many opportunities he's been given to grow up and learn to
> debate like an adult, he'd rather stomp his feet and keep restating his same
> comments over and over than adapt or reject his position when the facts show
> it to be less than airtight.

The same applies here..sniping trolling, attacking.
And the accusation is idiotic because it's *You* that has shown "no facts"
to show Zappa introduced Hendrix to the peddla-wah.
That's *your unsupported declaration*---.. not mine.

I'm haven't said anything but "prove that with fact". You haven't.
So you've nothing left but to angrily troll,flame and troll more about Defi.

Find something concrete Stack and quit your pissing to the NG.

>
> The fact is, for all defi's whining, he still only has Noel's word on the
> subject that Jimi bought a wah-wah in June of '67. Unfortunately, this is
> the same Noel whose statements about the wah-wah inspiring the arrangement
> for "Burning" cannot be true, since the Experience began recording the song
> (with the same intro arrangement) over a month before the group got their
> hands on a wah-wah even by Noel's story.

The only person "whining' is named Stack- sniping/trolling/whining flames.

Noel's stories fit in with all the dates i've seen.. most especially
at "Houston Studios".. 28-30 June. That's where he mentions wah & 12string
and that's what Martin O's post showed"all those tapes were trashed"-gone*
Which also explains why nobody has heard Noel playing the 12string-wah.
But which means that Jimi liked that "idea" and decided to use it later.
Sounds good to me as Noel talks specific to the Wah entering the picture.

Nope.... just find where Jimi says "Zappa turned me onto the wah-wah ".
or - Zappa saying "YUP!!.. it was ME.. turned Jimbo on to the wah-baby".
But get something close to genuine *fact* is all anyone or myself desires.
And if it turnsd out to be true.!?? -- GOOD.!!. but let's see some proof.


>To defi this isn't a contradiction.
> But again, that's purely due to the fact that for thirty years he didn't
> have to back up any of his statements with proof as he couldn't pay anyone
> to share air with him long enough to question any of his lunatic theories.

Flame/troll/flame.. sick obssession.

>
> In the end, I'm still more inclined to believe the story of Zappa
> introducing Hendrix to the wah. All we really have to suggest otherwise is
> Noel's story,

That's untrue.. there are a muriad of things..some plain facts too* that
go to suggest Jimi was hip to wah-wah right along with Zappa and the rest.
Starting with the known experiment into the "hand-wah" and God only knows
how many other types he toyed with..including lap-steel & organ tone pedals.
Jimi was hip on wah-wah's and no doubt kept abreast of any news on them.

It's also known that VOX released the first Clyde-wahs starting in "66
and that the first unit's were available in the UK - prior*to the USA.
Could he have gotten a wah-wah before Monterey.?? - Certainly.
So that's all above and beyond Noel's diary's.

>which could easily be a made-up tale to back up his claim that
> he came up with the intro to "Burning." I wonder how much he was sweating
> every time he gave an interview after the box set came out. Imagine the look
> on his face if asked, "So Noel, how's it possible that your experiments with
> the wah-wah in June of '67 inspired the intro arrangement that was recorded
> nearly verbatim (sans wah, of course) in May of '67? Take as long as you
> want, this should be fun..."

Looks like a Noel obssession too.

>
> Whether there is more to be learned about the story and the Zappa connection
> ultimately proves to be false or not, it really doesn't matter to me. I've
> been wrong before about far more important things.

You just have an extreme lack of remembering or admitting them.

I told you to *forget the barbs* that *YOU initiated as usual.
To just post the definitive statement(s) if you could.
Unfortunately for your ill temper and sick obssessions you've not shown
anything concrete and decided to just troll & flame instead.

Take another good long break away like the last two weeks
after your previous obssessive explosion.

<snip more diseased ranting>

> I applaud your efforts to deal with our problem child in a civil manner, Mad
> Dog

Troll baiting isn't civil at all.

>(though you'll note that true to form he's seeing offense in every
> statement of yours now since you're a "traitor" who's not backing him up.)

Facitiousness is the correct term.
Never implied anything like traitor.. dead wrong.

> I'm sure once you've been here a while and been on the receiving end of
> enough of his paranoid accusations, you'll give up on any inclination to
> treat him with kid gloves. Straight and brutal seems to be the only method
> of communication he understands.

I like straight truthful debate.. honest debate..yes passionette debate
I love seeing people that are moved strongly by all things Jimi or musical.

But trolling...sniping... and flaming.. isn't a sick obssession of mine.
That's all your's Stack. The members of this NG don't buy that anymore.

Here's a nice tidbit for your Wah-obssession too*
Take it from 3Defi and *call Manny's Music in NYC* ask them
where they get off claiming to have sold Jimi his first wah-wah.
Ask them if they can prove he didn't already own one prior to that.
Ask them if Jimi hadn't already used one in the UK before them.
Ask them *when* they sold it to him for starters.!.
All sorta good shit to pester'em with to keep you from trolling for 2secs.
And don't forget to ask them when Eric Clapton bought his too*

Come back with something Defi-nitive -- not with sick obssessive trash.
Ciao*
3Defi

Olompali4

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:13:03 PM1/2/04
to
>I can only laugh at how defi was once again
>sitting home on New Year's Eve trolling Usenet while I was out having the
>time of my life. For about a twenty-four hour period there you couldn't have
>gotten me within a country mile of my computer unless you had a gun<

Extraordinary juvenile remark.

Marshall Stack

unread,
Jan 2, 2004, 9:55:31 PM1/2/04
to

"Olompali4" <olom...@aol.compton> wrote in message
news:20040102211303...@mb-m02.aol.com...

You flatter me. But now that I think about it, it was a rather extraordinary
remark about defi's juvenile behavior.

Cheers!!!


Mix

unread,
Jan 3, 2004, 2:46:54 AM1/3/04
to

"Olompali4" <olom...@aol.compton> wrote in message
news:20040102211303...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Cheap shot. Love him or lump him, Stack certainly deserved better than
that, especially given the overall context of his statement. His
contributions to this group stand as tall as anyone's, and in many cases,
taller. I have no dog in this hunt, in that I frankly really don't care
about the exact second during which Jimi first pressed a wah-wah pedal.
...Although I'm sure it's historically important to someone.

defi has historically behaved in a juvenile manner in this NG, with his
two-year-old tantrums whenever anyone would deign to disagree with defi.
Stack was in the midst of pointing that out before you took his comments out
of context.

- D


3Defi

unread,
Jan 3, 2004, 4:50:51 AM1/3/04
to
>Mix bespake :

And the "other bellering troll" chimes in.
We're tired of your non-stop histrionics too.
Stop sniping..stop trolling..and stop flaming at 3Defi
and at anyone that states something that remotely appears in his favor*
There's only two bellyachers in this NG anymore -Stack & Darryl Mix.
Try making that WERE*.
3Defi

Myth

unread,
Jan 3, 2004, 8:06:39 AM1/3/04