From: radio_middle_class_lefty@hotmail.com   
      
   "Pete Bayle"  wrote in message   
   news:8d9486cd.0404261052.10d644f0@posting.google.com...   
   > "   
   >   
   > Yes I do, except Bach and Rembrandt weren't Bach and Rembrandt until   
   > about the same time, mid 19th century. Not sure about Shakespeare.   
   >   
   > And Stravinsky say is going the other way isn't he?   
   >   
   > I also think Dylan is a qualitatively different kind of artist than   
   > the Beatles and the Stones. He may have a chance. Not sure the others   
   > will in the long run.   
      
   Well people will always think that Dylan is a heavyweight because of his   
   prolixity. He's on a same par with the others in my view--gets points for   
   invented the solipsistic waffle song that has been the backbone of   
   'rock'--loses points for being contrary and a method actor impersonation of   
   a dust bowl troubadour which I find quite laughable at this remove, that is   
   to say more laughable than Jagger's impersonation of Muddy Waters. At their   
   best they all brought something rich and strange to the party.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)