Originally posted by evecasino
Then it's strung upside down. Otherwise low E would be on the bottom.
Guitar techs I know always use that term. The way we tune it or the way we string it for them. Even though I know they have never strung a guitar for many of the people they mention.
[edit on 31-8-2004 by evecasino]

No, if you read Tom Sawyers posts you will see he is insinuating that he played with the string upside down even left handed. This is not so.

Here is what he stated: "Well for starters he was left handed (hint hint). He also played the guitar backwards, i.e. with the neck facing the opposite dirrection of typical guitarists. On top of that he played his guitar strung upside down. I.E. his guitar strings were strung in reverse order then "normal" guitarists."

This is not correct. He did not string "in reverse order then "normal" guitarists" as Tom Sawyer stated. His string were completely normal for a left handed player...common misconception, but wrong nonetheless.

What you are stating is correct...the low E is on top. However Mr. Sawyer is saying that the low E remained on the bottom the whole time, which is an incorrect assumption. Hendrix played just like every other guitarist...standardly strung!

[edit on 31-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

Originally posted by Jazzerman
What you are stating is correct...the low E is on top.
[edit on 31-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

Right but since I am a right handed guitarist If I were to play Jimi's guitar strung as it were I would be playing with the strings upside down.

Anyway, Jimi is indeed an inspriration for many as is Otis Rush, Albert King and Bruce Springsteen

Originally posted by evecasino
Right but since I am a right handed guitarist If I were to play Jimi's guitar strung as it were I would be playing with the strings upside down.

Yes, correct, but that is not how Jimi played. He played standard left handed. Saying the strings are reversed from normal only means that the top string would start with the high e and follow as e B G D A E. So, Jimi played completely normal for a left handed player, and since he was not right handed that means his strings were not reversed for HIM. To a right hander trying to play his instrument they would be upside down, but not to him. Tom Sawyer was indicating that he played upside down...even for a left hander...and this is the part that is incorrect.

Jazzerman,

I love it when people think they know what I meant, better than I do.
What I don't get, is why are you nit picking what I said? As a historian, and music expert. You would think, that you would get the point in what I was trying to say. Why nit pick it then? You knew my point, was that he played guitar un-conventionally. I never said for a left hander! I said then "normal" guitarists. I can't help it, if you don't get what I am trying to say. Maybe ask for clarification, rather stating I'm not a musician?


Jimi Hendrix could play the guitar forwards, backwards, upside down, right side up, left handed, and right handed. Did that get your blood flowing? Ok maybe a slight exageration.

His brother said, in the quote I provided previously. That, his father didn't like for Jimi to play left handed. So when his father was around, he flipped the guitar and played it that way. When he left, he flipped it back. Can you see this in your head? Left hand or right hand dominant. So if he had his guitar strung, lets say the "normal way". The way the majority of guitarists play, is from large string to small string, from the top of the neck to the bottom. Right? (I'm not going to use techncal terms, because I want others to understand, that "aren't musicians". I don't need to impress anyone, I need them to understand what I am saying. That is more important in my mind.)

So you have your strings from the largest string to the smallest string in width. Going from the top of the neck, to the bottom of the neck. Now visualize rotating the guitar in front of you, like a ZZ top video. Now if you look down at the neck, what do you see? Now the strings are going from smallest to largest, right? Because you flipped it upside down. Jimi's brother said that he flipped it. "That's how he learned to play guitar." The only way Jimi could have played with the large strings on top, both left and right handed. Is if he re-strung the guitar. His brother didn't say anything about re-stringing the guitar, when his dad was around. He said flipped.

So what does that mean? That Jimi could play the guitar strung the normal way. Or with the smaller strings on top, going to the larger strings on bottom. I'm inclined to believe Jimi's brother on this one. The bottom line for me, is that he did play the guitar both ways. If he could do all of the things he did, what makes anyone think he couldn't do whatever he wanted to with the guitar. Especially if he had lived until now.

Tom





You can't see me, but I am doing my OH Yeah!!!!! dance. :-) Come back ya hear? Go Tom Go Tom!!! JK I am staring to take it less seriously now, since you didn't have intentions of attacking my rep.

Tom

TomSawyer...your still wrong. What has Jimi learning the guitar by a different method at a young age have to do with his recording years? The fact is that later in life he was so used to playing left handed that he could no longer play right handed and this is why he converted right handed guitars to left handed one's. His childhood playing has nothing to do with this argument and is but a mere side arguement to back up an incorrect statement.

The fact is that he could no longer play right handed by the time he was older and in the recording studio, as he had played left handed so long that he forgot. As an ambidexterous person myself I understand how this could happen...I play right handed and started off playing left handed, but if you asked me to play left handed now I would not be able to do it...same thing with Hendrix! So, no matter if you want to admit it or not, you are wrong on this one once again.

Seriously, this is getting too easy!

PS- I would do a little dance like you, but I don't want to rub this down your throat any further. Just accept that you stated something incorrectly and lets be done with this. Also, being an Historian, as you duely noted that I am, its my job to nitpick at every little thing and question things I believe to be incorrect.


Also, I agree with you that I should not have said "your not a musician", but simply tried to correct your mistake. Nevertheless, I did not mean for it to come across as a dig at you, so I am sorry you had mistaken it as such!

Jazzerman,

I think I understand where our disagreement is coming from now. Like I said before, I started researching Jimi, after I found out about my signature. I read about Jimi's brother, family etc.. I also read several sites that stated he played with his guitar strung upside down. I assumed when they refered to his guitar being strung upside down, that it was one in the same. That they meant the way I stated. You are right, it is a misconception.

I will admit, that I could have been more clear in my post. He did play his guitar strung upside down as I said. He just didn't do it, when he was older/recording. (He also didn't have to.) I didn't say he did it when he was older/recording. But I can see how I might have left you with that impression. Please understand, I am not an expert/historian/Jimi fanatic. So I'm naturally not going to be as specific as someone like yourself. It's not that big of a deal/important to me. I do recognize however, that it is to you and why.

I obviously wasn't clear about when he played, the way I said in my own mind. I don't go around memorizing everything I hear or read about Jimi, or anything else for that matter. I try to remember as much as possible. But the remarkable things get remembered, and the rest is a haze. I just remembered that tid bit, and put it in the post. Because I thought it was remarkable. So I didn't remeber correctly, when he did it. Just that he had. That's why I wasn't more clear about it.

It's not about when he did it for me, it's that he did it. And if he was able to do that, what else could he have done if he tried? I come from the mindset of endless posibilities. I am an optimist, I admit it. You believe he was a good guitarist. I believe he was a visionary. Like the song says "There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bag guys.There's only you and me, and we just disagree. ooooo oooooo oooooo........"

To me this debate isn't even about what Jimi could or couldn't do. It's about how profound what he did do was. Isn't it? You see him as good. I am looking at the big picture. What percentage of the population could do what he did at that time? What percentage of guitarists could do what he did, at that time? How many guitarists were doing what he did before him etc. In that light, he was truely one of a kind in my mind. It seems like, you don't feel he had a big influence on Rock and Roll. I on the other hand, think his style changed the face of Rock and Roll.

At the time he was a freak. People in the US didn't even like him very much, because he was too different. Which begs the question, what was he doing guitar/sound wise, that was so different? And if he was that far away from the mainstream. How many guitarists were doing what he was before him? How could he be just another guitarist or good, and be so unique at the same time? Why is it he has been so popular for over two decades, even in the US? My perception, is because he was ahead of his time, or as I said a visionary. It seems to me, time finally caught up with his sound. So I truely don't understand your view on this, that he was "good".

Maybe your view on Hendrix, is akin to my view on Eddie Van Halen? He too was a visionary in Rock music IMO. But I think he was good, not great. It's hard to view him as great, compaired to Vai, or Satriani to name a couple. Compaired to them, he is just good talent wise. Even so, I would still give him props, for changing the face of rock and roll as well. I hope I'm not digging another hole to climb out of here. ;-) But before Eddie and before Eruption, I had never heard anyone play guitar like that. Then shortly afterwards, everyone and their dog seemed to copy his finger roll style of playing. So it seems like, he had a big influence on Rock music as well. So maybe, I can say he was great. But it would be because of the influence he provided. Not because of his playing ability. So maybe you are looking throughout history, like I do with Eddie and playing ability?

I remember the conflict, between Jimi and Pete Townsend. Pete didn't even want to follow Jimi on stage. Because Jimi would steal the show. I would have to agree if you said Vai is better, or even Satriani. Jordan is a bad mofo too. But at the time, in his day. Jimi was the shiznit wasn't he? I'm no expert like I have already stated. But I don't know of anyone that was doing what he was doing, sound wise before him. So I would agree that Jimi was a good guitarist playing wise. But because of the influence he had on Rock music, I have to say he was great. That's where I am coming from.

What would be even more amazing to me about Jimi. (Yes I know you don't share my enthusiasm here) Is if he had his guitar strung right hand normal, when he was flipping his guitar on his dad. If he had it strung right hand normal. That would mean, that he played guitar three different ways in his life. My assumption would be, it was right hand normal at the time. Because it seems like it would be too obvious to his dad. If it were strung upside down. With jerry rigged strings etc.. If that is the case, then that would mean he played right hand normal, left hand upside down, and left normal. I myself would never claim to be a guitarist, as I am not that good at it. Once again, it's just not that important to me. So naturally, it would probably impress me more if Jimi played three diffeent ways. Do you know how it was strung then?

To me, he proved he had the capability to play however he chose? He also proved mentally that he had the capacity to play guitar however he chose. That's how I am looking at. He could have, and did do alot of unique things on guitar. Reguardless of when or how long etc.. In my mind, he had the potential, it was just a matter of time. Unfortunately it was the one thing he didn't have. Don't you ever wonder at all, how he could have turned out. Or wonder if he were still alive, if he would be the undisputed king of rock guitar? I do, and I think that is the difference in our views. I wonder how Vai/Hendrix would turn out today at the crossroads. If Jimi had continued to progress and broadened his horizons even further. Who knows, maybe Jimi is Vai.

It's bedtime for Bonzi. Thank you for your apology, I appreciate it. I appologize for not speaking more clearly, and not having a better understanding myself of what I meant. I'm a happy go daisy kind of guy. This was supposed to be simple chit chat for me, not a full blown debate. My horse wasn't even in this race. Now if you said Steve Vai was "good"......... :-)

Take Care,
Tom

Would you two like to get a room or something? This is getting out of hand, just exchange addresses and that's it!

Enough of this nonsense, just go to youtube, watch a video, and look at the strings.