
Look, I get it; Jimi Hendrix is/was a very famous rock guitarist. Probably the best, even. But come on news outlets, shit-talking the Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd for not knowing who Jimi Hendrix is in a lead up to his maybe appearing on the cover of the Australian Rolling Stone? Inexcusable*.
I know people like to claim that they want a leader they can drink a beer with/dream of doing/talk about Eddie Van Halen vs. Jimi Hendrix with/hope doesn't screw them over re: universal health care because of previsouly made agreements with insurance companies, but come on. What does it matter that Kevin Rudd can't tell Jimi Hendrix from his own asshole? It doesn't. As long as the guy can properly negotiate baby-taking dingo subsidies, his lack of Hendrix knowledge is totally fine. I'd be more worried about a prime minister who wore a Jimi Hendrix T-shirt all the time and dreamed of going back in time to see him at Woodstock. Dude's got more on his plate than to worry about dead guitarists.
Not to mention that the tone of all of the news reporting of this makes fun of Rudd not for not knowing who Jimi Hendrix is (which seems impossible, since dude is hard to avoid) but more because he has the stones to listen to classical music instead. I mean, people listen to classical music. It's not like dude said, "I don't understand this collision of tones and melodies you call music." He just doesn't listen to rock music, which is totally okay, fine. [Spinner]
As a sidebar: That Spinner story's headline says "Australian Prime Minister Unaware of Jimi Hendrix's Existence" which brings up an interesting question. Does Jimi Hendrix exist? I mean, he did exist 40 years ago, but does he "exist" right now? I mean, dinosaurs did exist, but would you ever phrase something as "I am not aware of the existence of dinosaurs"? Because technically, in the present tense, dinosaurs don't exist. It's not like you'll see a brontosaurus walking down main street. Or Jimi Hendrix, for that matter. I clearly have way too much free time.
And it just occurred to me that saying "Not know who Jimi Hendrix is" is technically incorrect.
Three things: it's okay for dude not to know who Jimi Hendrix is. Music writers find this kind of functional rock ignorance egregious because we eat, sleep and breathe music. We have to realize that not everyone else on the planet does (what a hard-won lesson that was for me!), and if they do, not everyone is necessarily interested in the same kind of music. So all this public ridicule is unfair in that respect.
Conversely speaking, it's NOT okay for dude to grace the cover of a storied rock n roll publication and not be knowledgeable of at least the basics. I don't know dick about engineering, so don't look for me on the cover of Popular Mechanics, catch my drift? And I should only hope that his apparent lack of a relatable connection with the pop cultural nexus doesn't exemplify a deeper disconnect.
Lastly, I don't think it's fair to equate a freakish adoration of rock with some kind of political incompetence. It wasn't that long ago that one William Clinton spent a large portion of his political campaign cavorting with musicians, avidly courting the MTV crowd, and cheesing in a band on national TV behind a saxophone with sunglasses on. The rest is history, innit?
oh god andrew will you please start writing all of your headlines this funny. and ok. existence. my thought is that every concept exist. the question is *in what context* it exists. jimi the idea, jimi the legend, jimi the influence, jimi the deceased musician. he exerts influence, which seems impossible without the fact of existence. if it "exists in your mind," it "exists." kind of like how god "exists" even though he might not EXIST.
are you sure you do either ? The pic which accompanies this piece is not JH
steve