Quick thought on "power trios", or perhaps trios in general. Like all things it's difficult to colour it good or bad, my sense is it was a natural evolution that started well and went in a few different directions - and agreed, one of those directions was absolutely execrable.

It'd be difficult to argue that the Jimi Hendrix Experience or Cream were not important and good (if not fantastic) bands that moved the art of rock music forward. And let's not forget the Who, as Daltrey was only ever a singer. All of these dudes added a huge amount to the rock library in terms of great songs, but also were iconic in changing the idea-making about what rock could be. And yes they wanked on stage a bit too much, but some of it, a lot of it, was and is absolutely stunning music. Unfortunately a generation of lesser musical minds (perhaps not lesser musicians) took the ball and ran with it, and so you have Triumph, Rush, numerous others. As is probably well known, I really don't like Rush, though I know others will take umbrage.

Musically I think it all comes down to freedom of expression - drawing inspiration from the jazz movement (as usual.... ha!) in the 50's and 60's jazz when bands began playing without piano players. Think of Coltrane's Village Vanguard record - three musicians playing long form improvised pieces. If you listen to it's far closer to a rock record - or what rock would become - then a jazz record. And yet it was done in 1961. Some would argue it's his purest and best record (not me though).

Being the only melodic instrument in a musical setting has big (musical) responsibility and creates big freedom. Great musicians tend to seek that. Doesn't always mean it makes for great music. I can't stand the ego of the early 70's Jeff Beck projects with Tim Bogert and Carmine Appice for example, though it could be said that they were the three (or among the three) greatest rock musicians of their time.

Ok, now I'm wanking. Next subject!!