Mick and Keith and Thomas

[MalignD at aol.com]

<< 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 don't know; I'm not sure I'd call either of them visionaries.  Charlie 
Parker was a visionary.  In rock, Brian Wilson -- seeing that the Hi-Lows could 
mesh with Chuck Berry; Gram Parsons, inventing country-rock (and both great song 
writers); or Buddy Holly, marrying Bo Diddley to Texas country. There are 
others. 

The Stones basically ramped up the blues and they were really good at it, but 
I don't see what they did as visionary.

I can't see Keith as great outside the band he ended up in.  His solo efforts 
were forgetable and his guitar playing is terrific within the context of the 
Stones but, more broadly, he's not particularly versatile.  The Stones always 
had two guitarists, always needed two guitarists, and I don't know any 
guitarist who thinks Keith was a better player than Mick Taylor, although, in the 
Stones, he's clearly more important.  I mean, I like Keith, but I don't get your 
placing him on the rung you're placing him on.

Prince, I think, more a great synthesizer than a visionary, is, like him or 
not, rip-roaringly talented.  He puts out too much stuff and a lot of filler 
but, picking the really good stuff, and there's a lot I'd call really good 
stuff, he's a good singer,  a great guitar player (like Keith, in context), 
producer, arranger, band leader, song writer and a better-than-competent drummer, 
keyboardist, and bass player.  He's a hundred times more prolific than Keith and, 
unlike the Stones (and yes, he's younger), Prince remains relevant.  The 
Stones have been, basically, an oldies act for some twenty-five years.

and yes:  Prince is a way better dancer.