Which do you think is better?
-
Thijs85 — 15 years ago(November 04, 2010 03:03 PM)
Really? The Stones and The Doors are legends whose impact on rock music have been almost if not equal to Bob Dylan and The Beatles. I'm a Bob Dylan fan and I don't mind The Beatles but people put them on some high pedestal and make it seem as if everything else is beneath them.
If you put the 5 best Rolling Stones' songs on a disc, you've basically covered their best songs, The Doors as well, for Dylan and the Beatles you wouldn't get there with 5 CD's full. I truly do get the admiration for The Doors, but still I could name at least 20 bands/artists equal or better, The Rolling Stones are incredibly overrated. Sure, they've got Gimme Shelter, Paint It Black, Satisfaction, You Can't Always Get What You Want and Sympathy for the Devil, but if you name those five, there's no sane person who would argue they made any song better than those 5. If you put a top 5 for Dylan, you could be right with naming 50 better songs. Same goes for the Beatles. -
wylierichardson-966-922691 — 9 years ago(October 27, 2016 09:28 PM)
That is an odd argument - if you can name the best five songs by ANY artist, then by definition, those are the best songs by that artist! Maybe the real test could be comparing the 'best of' by each artist. With that said, I would rank these 4 artists the following way:
- Stones
- Doors
- Beatles
- Dylan
-
apostasia — 15 years ago(November 02, 2010 03:49 AM)
Bob and the Beatles are at the top of the tree for me. The Stones had some good patches but a lot of their stuff was very filler-y. I loved the Doors when I was a moody teenager but I don't really go back to them any more.
Just a painted face on a trip down suicide row -
MurderInc2014 — 15 years ago(November 04, 2010 07:42 AM)
First off, CrimsomxPhanytasm, one thing is obvious, you need to download more Dylan. It's that simple. 28 songs doesn't even nick the surface of his vast catalog.
Second, for me,there is no one better nor more influential of a songwriter than Dylan. But I don't think this thread of who is better is really a fair question to ask since the others are all bands. Bob Dylan, being a solo artist, is the single most influential songwriter in pop/rock music everperiod. Beatles and Stones, as bands, were great and also were enormously influential in their own right. However, as solo artists, I don't think McCartney, Lennon,Harrison, Jagger, Richards, Morrison etc.(as solo artists that is) come close to what Dylan has achieved as a solo songwriter/performer. McCartney is probably the closest to Dylan..but most of his greatests achievements in song writing happened as member of the Beatles. Not to devalue McCartney's work, which I'm not, but Dylan did almost all his stuff as a solo artist. The Beatles were the greatest band of all time, I think, with The Stones a close second. I mean, it's like trying to ask who is better, Elton John or Led Zepplin. Too me that doesn't make sense. -
Beatriz-Chan — 15 years ago(November 14, 2010 01:58 PM)
This thread holds little value because it is posted on a Dylan board. What else do you think these Zimmerman sycophants would say?
Take away the support of The Band during Dylan's halcyon days and you're basically left with a nasally, flat voice who couldn't even play the harmonica adequately. Listen to Brian Jones if you want to hear how the blues harp should sound.
I loved Simon and Garfunkel's parody of Dylan. It sums him up so succinctly. It's
called "A Simple Desultory Philippic" and it includes the ubiquitous off key harmonica playing. -
BingoRingo — 15 years ago(December 15, 2010 09:24 PM)
Very true, Brian had the harp down perfectlyactually, he could play most instruments almost without flaw.
As far as the comparison, I don't think you can really compare those people. Yeah, they were in the same time frame, but that's where the comparisons end. -
streetlegal — 15 years ago(December 16, 2010 11:47 AM)
Dylan is a wonderful harmonica player, if you listen to the first disc of the 1966 'Royal Albert Hall' gig, the solo Dylan performance is just as mesmerising as the electric set. There are numerous other examples of hiw harmonica prowess, perhaps the best one is the studio version of Every Grain Of Sand.
He is a wonderful, instinctive musician. -
CasseroleWorshipper — 13 years ago(June 06, 2012 02:20 AM)
I agree that his harmonica playing can be spectacular, and not only on EVERY GRAIN OF SAND but also other gospel era songs. BUT the harmonica is pretty annoying at times on the Royal Albert Hall concert, he improvises way too much and doesn't differ much from a 5 year old who's trying out the instrument for the first time. But obviously it adds a haunting quality to the music and fits his voice perfectly.
I don't mean to impose, but I am the Ocean. -
Red_Barn — 15 years ago(January 06, 2011 09:05 AM)
Dylan: Brilliant songwriter, average guitarist, poor singer. Made folk music mainstream. Used the ancient format of a man with a guitar before realising he wasn't good enough on his own and got a band. Legacy: lots of good songs that others tend to do better than he did.
Beatles: 2 good songwriters, 4 average musicians, 3 fair singers. Reintroduced 50s-style Rock and Roll into pop music before making naff Psychedelia. Right place, right time. Legacy: lots of good songs that others tend to do better than they did.
Doors: Mixture of bad poetry from a charismatic, drugged up front man with psychedelia to capture the mood of the time perfectly. Legacy: lead singers want to be moody like he was.
Stones: 3 good songwriters, 5 very good musicians, great lead singer and frontman, excellent backing singing. Took a blues foundation, expanded it tremendously into the mainstream and became the first proper rock band. They are the bridge from the past to the future and their influence is massive. Legacy: a whole generation of singers and guitarists wanting to emulate them plus a wealth of songs.
It would have been interesting to talk about The Who, The Kinks, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin too, but we'll leave that for another occasion.P.S. Don't any Dylan fans get offended - I was asked so replied and this is what I think. I'm sure you disagree.
-
madcbara — 15 years ago(January 06, 2011 05:38 PM)
I think you're underestimating Dylan's legacy. He didn't only make folk music mainstream, he gave Rock music intelligence by incorporating poetry and stream of consciousness lyricism. He co-created Folk-Rock by plugging in and playing a form of music that wouldn't have been as financially successful as his previous work had been, in regards to his die-heard folkie fans of course. He's often compared to a Rimbaud reading James Dean for his hip aura during the 60's. I could definitey see that about him.
I can't seem to fathom why you think The Stones were the
"first proper rock band"
instead of The Beatles or The Crickets? They were the first Rock bands to write and record their own original songs.. and without any help from Tim Pan Alley material.
Ah, but I was so much older then
Im younger than that now -
Red_Barn — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 03:48 AM)
Stones were a rock band, Buddy Holly et al were a Rock and Roll band. The Beatles started as R&R, then became pop, and eventually became a rock band but some time after the Stones did it.
Dylan did not give "Rock music intelligence". By the time he had jumped on the rock bandwagon it already had that. -
madcbara — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 10:58 AM)
Rock & Roll and plain old Rock as genre terms have always been interchangable for me. Besides, weren't the Stones always rooted in Rock & Roll?
I'd argue that Dylan did indeed give Rock music it's intelligence and poetic touch.
Bringing It All Back Home
was released in the first month of January, and I've yet to find a Rock album before that could rival it's epic scope and brilliance in lyricism. Up until this point the majority of Rock lyrics were either lovey dovey or agressive rockers with catchy phrases.
The mere first verses of "Subterranean Homesick Blues" or "Gates Of Eden" rest my case completely.
Ah, but I was so much older then
Im younger than that now -
Red_Barn — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 11:36 AM)
I'd put the Stones as more rooted in the blues.
Are you American, by any chance? I've noticed that Americans tend to be freer with their genres. Michael Jackson is in the Rock and Roll hall of fame, for heaven sake!
To my ears there is little what I would call "Rock" music that Dylan has ever done. You mentioned Gates of Eden: that's just him on an acoustic and I can't think of anything less "Rock" than that.
Good lyrics have always existed as you go back in time in Country, Folk, Blues, Soul, Popand Rock.
At the end of the day, if you don'b68t agree with me, that's fine.