Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
X-rated Bob wrote:
How many guitarists would fall through the cracks between genres?
That's why you'd need a whole host of sub-genres.
It's still problematic because some players don't fit neatly into a genre. Where do fit in Prince for example? Not saying that he's one of the best of the best, but he's at least worth considering. Or Jeff Beck? And the boneheads (not your good self, the boneheads who run things at the magazines) would probably have "acoustic guitar" as a genre and chuck John Fahey, Martin Carthy, Bert Jansch, Bruce Cockburn and Gary Davis in against each other.
I understand your point, but I have a problem with genres because they do tend to exclude some very original artists. Or you end up with a kind of calculus that breaks genres into sub-genres and breaks down the sub-genres and we end up with just infinite graduations of "music" (which I'd prefer).
X-rated Bob wrote:
If you were working on a list of the 50 greatest scientists you'd want Issac Newton in there even though some of what his work is now redundant.
May be a bad example. ? Newtonian physics has been built on and expanded, but it's still just as valid today as it was in the 17th century.
Yes. Bad example. Because the kind of expert you are talking about would understand Newton's place in the scheme of things. I was trying to make the point that you can be great because of your contribution at the time you made it and remain great even though you have been surpassed by someone who came after you.
