Originally Posted by why
By your own admission he knew little about music and 'reinvented' an instrument (in other words, made it produce different sounds than was considered harmonious at the time). But this definition implies some natural constancy as if musical tastes didn't change, or people weren't simply entertained differently than before. This isn't the case.
A physicist that discovers something new needs to do so within the laws of nature -- that is, a constancy -- and can't simply rely on a fluctuation in physical laws.
The arguments for Hendrix's prodigy are tired and juvenile.
WTF does this even mean? You have a way of being incredibly convoluted. It's always better to use the plainest possible language to express yourself. The other possibility is that you misuse words and syntax to hide the fact that you're not really saying anything. As best I can tell, you're saying that Hendrix wasn't a musician because he wasn't trained, and therefore was merely making sounds that were atonal and unrelated to any musical tradition? That's plainly not true, though it wouldn't serve as a convincing argument if it were. He was playing the blues, and then did a lot more than that, but whatever. His peers seemed to think he had some sort of gifts that placed in category beyond their own abilities, both as a virtuoso and creative force. As I said in my first post in this thread, the word is fraught, and I don't really care who get's labeled "genius." Just don't make asinine comments and then pretend to support them with juvenile dorm room gobbledygook.