[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

First, how do you know? Is this really true?

Second, slowly reread that list of names. If an entertainer didn’t (you’d say) happen to be as famous as this group of veterans, does this necessarily mean he wasn’t a superstar himself?

What about the people you didn’t mention, like James Brown, Loretta Lynn, and Jim Morrison? Were they underground artists and not game changing stars, because they weren’t as famous as Elvis?

Also, you might remember: For 10 minutes, the Monkees were an absolute monster. That’s the moment when the Experience briefly opened for them.

In fact, the Monkees sold more records than the Beatles that year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bil...235008332/amp/

You know, the whole post I wrote last night was silly and badly written, both too long and too condensed. I don't know if anyone could extract what point I was trying to make. I'll try to do better.

In the course of this thread, commenting on the limits or relative levels of Hendrix's fame during his lifetime was meant to remind folks that:

1. When living in The Sixties (as I did) the world then was not all hip folks with hip tastes. People who didn't live it sometimes think it was.

2. That it's been remarkable that Jimi Hendrix's overall cultural footprint has continued long past his death. My vague "He wasn't that level famous" thing is just to highlight that interesting outcome. I wouldn't have predicted it in 1971 or 1972. Question for those who were adults in 1972: would you have?