Why not David Bowie,
Paul McCartney or Tom Waits (off the top of my head), for instance?
My second tier would be Waits, Nick Cave, Elvis Costello.
McCartney has no body of work to compare. Bowie is 3rd or 4th tier but
in those ranks there are a lot of others.
Are you talking about spread of time, just volume of what you perceive as
"quality" or both.

Both plus live performances that aren't predictable. I suppose I
actually value a jazz or gospel esthetic in live performances, high
level of musicianship, quality material, attempt to reach a
"spiritual" dimension, transport audience emotionally, spiritually,
emotionally and in some cases bodily (dancing not astral travel).

Can I add here I wasn't trolling or even seeking to convince you and
others. I'm not sure I want to continue on back and forth but while
its civil and intelligent and I have time I'll re-visit every now and
then. Its a long way - I'm in Oz y'know. Its hot. And I have lots of
work to do and music to catch up on.

If you were in Blighty, you wouldn't complain about it being hot - even if
it were summer here!

Whilst I'm an Elvis Costello fan, I'd have a hard time placing him above
McCartney, regardless of whether his latest album is any good. What he
has
*already* achieved is hard to top.

Again not seeking to argue - I just don't rate Macca at all.

Fair enough.

One day we'll get over this devisive obsession of specifying "white"
and
"black" /
I specify this because the same living artists in black music arent
around with a body of classy works and live performances.
But what *relevance* does skin colour hold?

Its hard one but it makes some sense in music.

I can understand the argument that music is formed from experience and that,
in different environments, being black is a different experience to being
white. I just wondered why you made the point of specifying. Maybe I'm being
overanalytical of your point.

Ray Charles is gone and in the last 10 years his output was to a large
extent a reprise, no surprises. Michael Jackson never fulfilled his
promise and schlocked out early in his career. Prince - still an
outside contender if he comes up with some new output. Assorted
rappers - to early to tell but no one looks like a stayer or
contender.

Stevie Wonder? I'm not as cheered by his later music, but I'd argue that
what he created in 1960s and 70s is enough for any lifetime of musical
achievement.

Stevie is certainly one of the greats. Its just I don't hear much
about him live these days or new product. That is part of my
criteria.Its partly about the canon, party longevity, partly quality,
partly creativity and if still giving it out live.

I'm not trolling. It just started off as a side comment putting Old
Shakey in context then saying although I think Neil is one of the
trinity (Bob the Father, Van the Holy Spirit, Neil the Son) I don't
take his advice on HiFi.

Didn't for one minute think you were trolling, just discussing.
I now understand your criteria for judging, which makes your choices easier
to understand.