If only you'd read and understood what better means.
You're just wrong. I play guitar better than a three year old banging on one out of tune.
The context is technical mastery of their instruments, which you'd know - had you but read. Sheesh.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. Who is better, Malmsteen or Rhodes? You're talking about a technical, and in art that's a very small consideration. Is Rembrandt better than Van Gogh? Art isn't a world for specifications. If it was no one should ever pick up a brush, because a camera is better.
Sorry man, you're absolutely wrong
No, I'm not going to even read an article w such a title. Even the basis of 'better' is entirely subjective. It's a ridiculous statement. You may be a guitarist, you'll never be an artist.
You're still wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.
It's not about who you like the best - that's an entirely different list. This is a set list with objective criteria.
Frankly. I'm eminently qualified to voice and hold these views.
You, on the other hand, haven't even taken the time to understand the subject but still feel as though you have a valid opinion.
That's also wrong.
I can call you wrong - all day long.
Well no... I can call you wrong for a few more hours. Then I'm a little busy! ;-)
You're just WRONG!
As for your Malmsteen vs. Rhodes question - if only you looked and saw the list and that'd answer that question for you. Sheesh!
You're just WRONG!
You have done nothing here but state 'you're wrong' which is not a compelling argument. I'm not even trying to defend Hendrix. But this argument of someone being better is entirely subjective. I love Mingus and think Jellyroll is entirely overrated. Early Miles was hot, later Miles was just drugs. Who is better? This isn't like putting two cars on a quarter mile. One will be faster, end of argument. Art isn't like that. Sorry man, no matter your schooling, you are absolutely wrong. And I did more than say 'you're wrong'.
(post is archived)