Richard,

I am able to deduce quite clearly that you didn't listen to the whole track but only a part of the first half.

Reading your other comments on this subject can only be compared to what it would look like to you if I started waxing lyrical about why Lord Denning was or wasn't my favourite judge.

It is getting clearer with each post that your fingers are in your ears, you are shouting LA LA at the top of your lungs and you are arguing to support your prejudice.

What you are talking about is the measure of your favourite artists iconic status, not their musical significance - and if "speaking for your generation" is the benchmark, then Wham, The Byrds, and Sandy Shaw stand as more representative, having been voted for, with hard cash, by more young folk of their day than hendrix Joplin or Morrisson ever were.

So that is clearly a flawed benchmark.

Hendrix was different as he genuinely had a new approach to music. Apart from the fact that he was informed about music to a pretty high level, (hence purple haze and foxy lady etc), he also wanted music to be experienced in a new way. He didn't want it to be listened to, he wanted it to be felt by the body - hence the high volume and the masses of distortion and other effects.

Electric Ladyland was also a goundbreaking album insofar as its creation involved the development of new studio techniques.

Jim Morrison was a Pin up with a good voice - the elvis of the psychedelic era - but if he hadn't been sexy and charismatic we wouldn't be aware of his existence.

Janis sang with Passion and I enjoy her music, but I can find nothing in it that hadn't been done already big mama thornton or billie holiday, much less that "changed the world".

I don't expect you to like Winehouse, but persisting in comparing her to George Miichael and Boy George, or arguing that she was less of a musician than Jim Morrisson is wilful ignorance.

I think I detect a little baby boomer arrogance creeping in here ...