Which do you think is better?
-
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. -
madcbara — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 04:38 PM)
Yeah, the Stones have always been very influenced by Chicago bluesmen. They grew up listening to Muddy and Jimmy Reed almost as much as they did with Chuck B. And yeah, I am American. I don't consider Michael Jackson a 'Rock and Roll' icon either..
Granted, "Gates Of Eden" may not be a "Rock" song per say, but I still consider Dylan a "Rock" icon, no matter how much he uses the acoustic guitar.
Ah, but I was so much older then
Im younger than that now -
VerbalKint2424 — 15 years ago(January 07, 2011 06:44 PM)
GOD. Reading these replies, I see what Elvis Costello meant when he said
"Writing about music is like dancing about architectureit's a really stupid thing to want to do."
Some of you are trying to deduce who's better through statistics!! What nonsense. Just enjoy the music, and be thankful your not listening to beep like Little Wayne. -
maneatingbear — 11 years ago(August 20, 2014 07:41 AM)
At cesarat37that's the exact opposite of the way I'd list it. Agreed w/ prior poster that The Doors isn't even near this level, Led Zeppelin and the Doors are hugely overrated IMO. I also feel The Beatles are rather overrated but I'd recognize that there's genius somewhere in themI like The Who and Pink Floyd but I also don't think they attain the same heights as the Stone, Beatles or especially Dylan, I'd throw the Kinks near the top as well.
I'm pretty much over people whining about Dylan's allegedly whiny voiceI feel like people stick to talking points rather than giving his albums their proper dueat any rate sit and listen to Blood on the Tracks, Desire and Street Legal and IMO you are listening to one of the greatest rock vocalists of all time. The musical performance and his singing voice are not typically technically percise but Dylan taps into my emotions, heart and brain more 5b4than any other musical artist. -
MurderInc2014 — 11 years ago(August 23, 2014 08:03 PM)
As a fan of Dylan's music, those stock complaints about his voice don't even register with me. Never understood them. always seemed like the convenient complaint on him"oh he's a great songwriter but he can't sing." NoB^llsh!t. There's no one else id rather hear sing a Dylan song than Bob Dylan. Not Jimi Hendrix, not Roger McGuinn, not Bruce Springsteen..and definitely not Axl Rose. Nobody. He's by far my favorite singer.
I like the Kinks too. As well as The Clash.if we're talking bands here. -
brooksshows — 11 years ago(January 21, 2015 11:28 AM)
Dylan is, no question, the best songwriter of our generation. Lennon and McCartney come in a distant second in my opinion, but still very good. The Beatles had more commercial success, the Stones have enjoyed longevity. The Doors aren't even in this conversation.