@n80, you misunderstand. My critique of Manzarek is not in terms of him not being a virtuoso (I don’t judge musicians by that yardstick), but by his musical ideas. The musical parts the other organists I named came up with don’t take virtuosity to play, but rather good musical instincts and ideas. Their song parts display that talent, one which Manzarek, imo, did not possess. Just my opinion, as I said. The Band’s pianist/singer Richard Manuel was not an accomplished drummer with chops, but his drum parts on The Band songs he played on are fantastic! His drum parts are musically brilliant, serving the interests of the song rather than his ego. THAT’S what makes for a superior musician. Matthew Fisher's organ part in Procol Harum's "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" is SO great, but not hard to play; no virtuosity required, but rather great musical ideas.
About my comments of Aerosmith copying The Stones, of course all musicians start out emulating those who came before them. But The Stones took the music of the Blues and Rock ’n’ Roll artists they most loved and made it their own. They didn’t set out to "become" Muddy Waters or Chuck Berry. The best musicians (not necessarily virtuosos) trace the music back to it’s roots, drawing on it’s originators. To use a contemporary band as your template, to not go back in time to explore the source and inspiration of their work, is what I object to. Rather than imitate The Stones, Aerosmith "should" have studied the same artists The Stones did, and create their own version of that music (as The Stones did), not setting their sights on "becoming" The Stones. That’s called a tribute band! You’re free to disagree, of course, but that’s what good musicians do, and is what makes a band a good one. Aerosmith is not a good band, and are actually considered a joke by the good ones. Honest!
You know who else didn’t think much of the doors (The Who, as well)? Jerry Garcia. But then, he was as much an opinionated *ssh*le as am I ;-) .
