27-11-2014, 20:59
The Oxford English Dictionary has 'best' as an adjective and adverb, as you would expect, and the definition as '...Of the highest excellence, excelling all others in quality....' On this basis, it is difficult (for me) to choose a musical artist who is definitively the best, although I can choose many who are among the best.
From the above discussion, one of the things that strikes me is that there is a difference between being influential and being the best. Elvis Presley, for example, was a big influence on Lennon and McCartney, but I can take him or leave him. Jimmy Page for argument's sake (really Led Zeppelin), influenced most of my favourite groups, but I would not describe Plant or Zeppelin as the best. Presley in turn was inspired by blues and country musicians, such as Arthur Crudup and Bill Monroe (thank God!).
Being a great musician is often the result of a team effort. McCartney had The Beatles plus Martin, Emerick, Epstein, Linda Eastman and others. Most significant was probably Lennon, who could adjust his songs and vice versa. Nor did The Beatles work in a vacuum, but drew on Fleetwood Mac, The Byrds, The Beach Boys and others. Squire and John Entwistle are the best bassists, and Emerson and Wakeman are the best keyboardists, for my money, but they all are/were in great bands. Without their respective groups no-one would've heard of them.
Jimi Hendrix combines various elements as one of the best rock guitarists. He was fantastically fast, played with feel, was a showman, innovated in the studio, great on record and live, was a multi-instrumentalist and influential, but he was not the best artist for me, because how do you compare him to other instrumentalists (pianists), groups, writers, styles and genres, . . . like The Beatles?
Among the best, because I have lots of bests, often in, or as, groups are: Jimi (guitar), The Beatles (group), Lennon and McCartney (songwriters), John Entwistle (bass), Johnny Cash (singer-songwriter/country/rockabilly), and the list goes on . . .
From the above discussion, one of the things that strikes me is that there is a difference between being influential and being the best. Elvis Presley, for example, was a big influence on Lennon and McCartney, but I can take him or leave him. Jimmy Page for argument's sake (really Led Zeppelin), influenced most of my favourite groups, but I would not describe Plant or Zeppelin as the best. Presley in turn was inspired by blues and country musicians, such as Arthur Crudup and Bill Monroe (thank God!).
Being a great musician is often the result of a team effort. McCartney had The Beatles plus Martin, Emerick, Epstein, Linda Eastman and others. Most significant was probably Lennon, who could adjust his songs and vice versa. Nor did The Beatles work in a vacuum, but drew on Fleetwood Mac, The Byrds, The Beach Boys and others. Squire and John Entwistle are the best bassists, and Emerson and Wakeman are the best keyboardists, for my money, but they all are/were in great bands. Without their respective groups no-one would've heard of them.
Jimi Hendrix combines various elements as one of the best rock guitarists. He was fantastically fast, played with feel, was a showman, innovated in the studio, great on record and live, was a multi-instrumentalist and influential, but he was not the best artist for me, because how do you compare him to other instrumentalists (pianists), groups, writers, styles and genres, . . . like The Beatles?
Among the best, because I have lots of bests, often in, or as, groups are: Jimi (guitar), The Beatles (group), Lennon and McCartney (songwriters), John Entwistle (bass), Johnny Cash (singer-songwriter/country/rockabilly), and the list goes on . . .
âThe fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.â William Shakespeare, As You Like It