The very first line of my post reads, and i quote, "Tho i respect his music....". So which part of that did you fail to comprehend? I never said they should'nt be given credit, and i am a big fan of Hendrix myself. I just dont believe in substance abuse, be in weed or tobacco, thats it.
Imagine a 10-year old kid who picks up guitar and learns about Hendrix and googles him. "Oh wow! Look Hendrix the great did drugs and died a premature(and stupid) death, cooooool, lemme try some of that too!" Trust me, it happens.
And dont call me bigot, bigot.
PS: And Yes to all the crackheads you mentioned.
They are legendary because of their music and their skills.
Just because somebody does drugs doesn't make him any less of a legend.
A wholesome non-drug using musician who never got known for being an icon or making music worth mentioning is LESS of a
MUSIC ICON than Hendrix.
We're talking music icon and legendary status here, and Hendrix is definitely one in the eyes of millions. Just because he died in his own vomit doesn't make him less of a
MUSIC icon. Jon Bonham is a supreme drummer - he was an alcoholic. Only a bigot would go "Oh his music is fantastic! But he drank, so he's not a music legend!".
If we defined our musicians as
MUSIC / DRUG-FREE / ONE STEP FROM HOLY HEAVEN / SOCIAL PREACHER / SINLESS OTHERWORLDLY SAINT-LIKE icons, then maybe you'd be right -
by this absurdly improbably definition, Hendrix is indeed far from a legend and does not deserve the credit he has for being an icon.
Travis will also be known as an iconic drummer when he passes (eventually) and not because he banged Pamela Anderson too (Which accordingly to you, 'is all good!'). But just because he DID, doesn't make him less of a music icon.
If a kid shoots his dad because he played Grand Theft Auto IV, does that make Grand Theft Auto IV any less of an awesome game, based on the conventional merits of what defines a good game?
If Obama smoked weed when he was a teenager, does it make him less capable of being a potential President now - based on the fact that he experimented?
If you are a bigot now and go on to become an outstanding and widely-respected musician, does it make you any less of a musical legend?
If the world's greatest orator, politician, inventor, scientist, social volunteer, teacher, student, and do-gooder smokes a cigarette (Which according to you is 'tobacco abuse'), does it take away from what he has achieved in his specialized field?
The simple and most obvious answer is 'no'.
To err is human. To contradict that would be social hypocrisy.
Millions of journalists, fans, music critics and guitarists adore Hendrix as a legendary musician.
Are these people supporting his drug usage? Not necessarily. Are they supporting a music icon? Most definitely.
Mutually Exclusive
"A statistical term used to describe a situation where the occurrence of one event is not influenced or affected by another event. In addition, it is impossible for mutually exclusive events to occur at the same time."
So don't be a bigot, and most of all, don't be unoriginal sod when it comes to using words to rebuke a thorough put-down - in this case, your thorough put-down.
Oh yes, one last thing.
If I am a smoker, but I have thoroughly owned your ass here in this forum, does it make you any less owned?
The answer is 'no'.
Levan
P.S. It is conditional, non-perceptive judgment like yours that is the root of the world's social misunderstandings.