I don't get why Hendrix is considered to be impressive. Yes, he was pretty good at guitar, but I don't think his songs were all that good, nor was he that great at singing. Maybe I haven't heard the right song of his yet, but his songs failed to make me move.
I think the viewpoint is a bit more like this. You look at "history's greatest art pieces", and a layman might not see anything special with them. Maybe the piece has little to no emotional value, etc. but to a seasoned artist it means the world. They see the technicals. They see the brushstrokes, the color choice, the shading, the outlines, etc. It might not invoke a powerful feeling, but it takes someone who practiced damn well for years to paint something like that. I think that's the same with Jimi. His songs, at face value, don't mean much. The lyrics aren't powerful, the singing isn't great, and so forth. Instead, you have to look at technicals. It takes years.. and years.. and then more years of practice to be able to grind on the neck like him, without even looking nonetheless. He's got amazing skills at the guitar, and anyone who plays guitar, or really any traditional instrument, would see that and be impressed by it. So if you're looking at the brushstrokes, not the image, you see God.
If you look at the image, and not the talent, you see just another image along a plethora of pointless images.
I do play instruments, and I appreciate his skill on the guitar, but at the end of the day I can only enjoy a song if it sounds good. No amount of appreciation can change that. Likewise, I appreciate the skill that it takes to perform classical music, but it's not terribly enjoyable to me. There's just something about it.
Haha, thanks for the followup. I try to be open minded about music and by extension I don't ever feel "you don't like what I like? How could you!!", so don't think I felt that towards you. Also, Hendrix is by no means my favorite artist either. More of a guitarist that I aspire to be, at least when I'm not on the classical guitar.