Gerard K H Love said:
if only for Definitely Maybe but a whole lot more as well.
ROC, and how come Bern Nix isn't on that list? ;)
No way. I can defend every one of those. I define "great" my way, and I understand that most everyone on earth has other definitions. Some people enjoy seeing the fruits of millions of hours of practice. I don't happen to be one of them. There is no soul in perfection. And certainly none in the pursuit of perfection.Mjp has got to be kidding with at least one of his.
I like Bach, but I would rather listen to Mozart or Beethoven, for the same reasons mentioned above. But classical composers aren't really a good comparison to guitar players because we'll never really hear their music played under their control, on the period instruments with rats nipping at our ankles and influenza about to kill us...that experience is long gone. Imagine someone two hundred years from now playing Jimi Hendrix songs from sheet music. That would sure be wild to hear, but it probably would not remind us of Hendrix playing.
In that case I sure you could fit Neil Young in there somewhere... maybe after Bo Diddley?I see no difference between Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, The New York Dolls, Peter Tosh and Husker Du. They are one side of the coin. People who want to be somehow intellectually challenged by their music are the other. Same coin. I just prefer when the awkward, pimply, sometimes unpleasant living, breathing side comes up.
Since you brought up Bach, I was thinking more of his general contemporaries, the old dead guys, a couple hundred years in the dirt.Yes, you can hear a large amount of classical music under the direct control of the composer. Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Schoenberg (conducting), Busoni, Part, Rautavaari, Messiaen and Ravel (playing) to name just a few. Some even playing their own music in the case of Busoni and Ravel.
I brought up the Hendrix analogy to show why it wasn't a good comparison.But you start by saying one can't compare classical composers to guitar players and then do so.