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
Then there's this old gag:
A company chairman was given a ticket for a performance of Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony." Since he was unable to go, he passed the invitation to the company's Quality Assurance Manager. The next morning, the chairman asked him how he enjoyed it, and, instead of a few plausible observations, he was handed a memorandum which read as follows;

For a considerable period, the oboe players had nothing to do. Their number should be reduced, and their work spread over the whole orchestra, thus avoiding peaks of inactivity.

All twelve violins were playing identical notes. This seems unnecessary duplication, and the staff of this section should be drastically cut. If a large volume of sound is really required, this could be obtained through the use of an amplifier.

Much effort was involved in playing the demi-semiquavers. This seems an excessive refinement, and it is recommended that all notes should be rounded up to the nearest semiquaver. If this were done, it would be possible to use trainees instead of craftsmen.

No useful purpose is served by repeating with horns the passage that has already been handled by the strings. If all such redundant passages were eliminated, the concert could be reduced from two hours to twenty minutes.

In light of the above, one can only conclude that had Schubert given attention to these matters, he probably would have had the time to finish his symphony.
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. 
Post removed 
The greatest musician i listen to in the family of plucked string instrument is Master Ostad Elahi...

even Yehudi Menuhin said listening to him that it was the greatest musical experience in his life...

By the way it is a sufi master praying with his instrument, then he never give any concert.... He was recorded by his disciple behind the scene... It is the reason why the sound is only acceptable....

But it is one of the greatest master i listen to , he plays tanbur adapted by himself.... He was the greatest virtuoso of his country at 9 years old...and he was playing indifferently by right or left hand....His mystical teaching are deep and on par with his musical virtuosity... His music is very complex improvisation....

https://www.ostadradio.com/index.html#

 I know this thread is a joke but this may interest one people or 2.....