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
wassaicwill

Showing 1 response by lwin

You have to be kidding me. The entire premise of this is so ridiculous,I will not bother to address anything beyond number one. As Kenny Wayne Shepherd learned when doing 10 days out; the blues masters he met with all played at a very slow pace but they hit all the right notes. It really influenced his playing going forward. Listen to Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy or Howling Wolf, they weren’t shredding their guitars but every note counted and had an impact. Speed might or might not be an indicator of instrument proficiency but not musical ability.