Originally posted by Incidents HappenI didn't say he couldnt improve; I said he did'nt need to. And if he's lost a bit over the last thirty years, so what? I don't play as well now as I did thirty years ago either. The difference is that nobody's debating whether I'm one of the top 5 or not. And if some players have more skill with the instrument than Dave Gilmour, it doesn't necessarily mean I prefer to listen to them.
What do you mean, how can he improve? ...
Originally posted by Incidents Happen ... A top-5 Guitarist has to continue to innovate...That may be one of your criteria, but it ain't necessarily so. For that matter, I don't think Dave Gilmour was ever considered particularly inovative - just very talented and [u]tasteful[/u]!
As I said earlier, I go according to whether I like to listen to somebody play. And most of the guys who make the usual 'Top __' lists sound very stale to me very quickly. Any show I've gone to that was billed as some kind of guitar extravaganza has invariably turned out to be a wankfest! :p