Mick and Keith and Thomas

[Joe Allonby]

Maybe we won't convince each other, but the comparison is not absurd. Both
musicians' talent primary talent is in their ability to direct other
musicians and to convey a musical idea - not just the notes and time.
They're visionaries. I just think that one is better than the other.

I did not say that the Beatles records had nothing to do with themselves,
only that they had access to a resource (George Martin) that the Rolling
Stones did not.

On 7/25/06, MalignD at aol.com <MalignD at aol.com> wrote:
>
> << Think in terms of the arrangements on songs like "Monkey Man" or
> "Jumping
> Jack Flash". Who do you think was responsible for those? There's no George
> Martin behind the controls. It's really all Keith. >>
>
> And Mick was ... where?
>
> And you're saying, are you not, that the far, far superior Beatles albums
> from the same period had nothing to do, in terms of production, with the
> Beatles
> themselves?  George Martin is on record saying otherwise.
>
> Anyway, you hold the songs you cite in higher regard than I do, though I
> think those are good, well-produced albums.  (But the choir in "You Can't
> Always
> Get What You Want" is laughably bad.  I didn't know, but have no doubt
> that,
> Keith conducted it.)
>
> He's a good guitarist, great in the context of the band, not really so
> great
> otherwise.
>
> But this is silly.  The comparison is absurd.  I could go into details,
> but
> I'm sure I wouldn't convince you.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20060726/56cbd06d/attachment.html>