Mick and Keith and Thomas

[jd]

All I know is that Prince can play a mean game of basketball without
even taking off his high heels.

On 7/26/06, Joe Allonby <joeallonby at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>