I appreciate Joe B, don’t get me wrong. But given your criteria, and a reliable scientific method for measurement, I would argue that Buckethead would score a higher cumulative grade.
Why not objectivist music reviews?
"Objectivist" equipment reviews are gaining in popularity, enabling audiophiles to rest easy knowing that their preferred piece of equipment with SINAD of
98 is _objectively_ better than one with SINAD of 97.5
Why not do the same for music?
I propose the following criteria for guitarists as an example:
1. Notes per second (NPS)--since speed is valued as a sign of mastery in an instrument, why shouldn't someone who plays faster be considered better than a slower player? (Goodbye, David Gilmour!)
2. Mistakes Per Minute (MPM) - - accuracy counts!! You could say it is equivalent to jitter or THD+N in equipment. (and goodbye, Jerry Garcia!!)
3. Length of Leads (LOL)--If you're so good, why are your solos so short? This is a no-brainer (later, guitarists before 1966!)
Put these together, and there is only one rational conclusion:
JOE BONAMASSA IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST OF ALL TIME
Thoughts?
WW
98 is _objectively_ better than one with SINAD of 97.5
Why not do the same for music?
I propose the following criteria for guitarists as an example:
1. Notes per second (NPS)--since speed is valued as a sign of mastery in an instrument, why shouldn't someone who plays faster be considered better than a slower player? (Goodbye, David Gilmour!)
2. Mistakes Per Minute (MPM) - - accuracy counts!! You could say it is equivalent to jitter or THD+N in equipment. (and goodbye, Jerry Garcia!!)
3. Length of Leads (LOL)--If you're so good, why are your solos so short? This is a no-brainer (later, guitarists before 1966!)
Put these together, and there is only one rational conclusion:
JOE BONAMASSA IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST OF ALL TIME
Thoughts?
WW