Bob Dylan vs. The Beatles
Decatur Metro | February 5, 2011This one’s a toughie. For me at least…
This one’s a toughie. For me at least…
Latest from Decaturish
Gone2seed
hipmama
MomofBoys
lumpintheroad
JC
AED
Daydreamer
thaibasil
mcdonough property o…
At Home in Decatur
At Home in Decatur
Steve
BeezieB
Jay
thaibasil
That’s four against one. Dylan doesn’t have a chance.
Hmm…maybe it should by Dylan vs. Lennon?
The comparison you often see is Beatles vs. the Stones.
Stones.
Yes, Stones.
Check out the show this coming Friday at Smith’s Olde Bar: it’s a Stones tribute band vs. a Beatles tribute band. That should settle the debate, or at least be a lot of fun to listen to.
In that case, Dylan.
BEATLES!
Beatles.
Great songs from both but I always like Dylan covers better than the originals.
Agreed. Dylan is the better songwriter (certainly the better lyricist) , but the Beatles were better performers.
Bob = master. So many, many amazing songs. Love the Beatles, espec. Lennon & Harrison songs, but no match.
Bob rules. Not even close. No one else approaches his body of work.
The Beatles, by a half-lyric.
Even better: “Abbey Road” vs. “The White Album”. And why?
Dylan. Only because he has so much material that really shines when someone is performing it. See: Masters of War & Eddie Vedder – gives me chills.
Dylan is one of the very few “rock and roll” artists of the past 50 years whose lyrics can stand alone as poetry. The Beatles have a few songs that almost get there . . .
It’s apples and oranges, except that they’re both genius. Why compare?
Beatles (and the White Album–more crap [Revolution #9] but more varied [from Julia to Helter Skelter] and in the end more interesting than Abbey Road).
Beatles. 1962-1970. A great run
Dylan. 1961-now. Has released brilliant albums in the past decade.
I love ‘em both. But Bob’s still here and still matters. I’ll give this one to him.
Humph! You youngsters. If you’d been there you’d remember the whole era was not about being adversarial. I’m with JohnBoy, above.
Give us youngsters a break. What do you want me to do? Ask you to compare Matchbox 20 to the Backstreet Boys?
Share the wealth!
Who?
“I asked Bobby Dylan, I asked The Beatles. I asked Timothy Leary and he couldn’t help me either….”
Just keep searching low and hiiiigh. I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
LOVE Bob Dylan. He stirs my soul. The Beatles were great, but I’ve never quite connected with their music. It’s always felt too contained or polished or something. I guess I need some grit…
( Sir Paul’s still got it going on! “Maybe I’m Amazed” is one of my all time fav songs, and he still leaves me all fangirly when he sings it!)
Beatles, because as mentioned above, performing too. And they have a special place for me, being obsessed with them for years when I was younger. Purely lyrically, I’d give edge to Dylan. Both acts are in my “top 5″ favorites.
(Deanne: yeah, I couldn’t believe how awesome it was seeing Sir Paul at the Piedmont concert)
(Light fuse, toss.)
Unintelligible vs overrated.
^^^
What’s the old line? “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
I’m smiling as I type that…not a personal attack…more of an indictment.
I love the early Beatles, right up to (but not necessarily including) Revolver. Those recordings sound joyful, which is something you don’t typically hear when you listen to Dylan. As their songs and recording sessions became more elaborate and “inventive,” and as their friendships decayed, the Beatles became less fun. But those early songs remind you how much fun it is to sing and play in a rock and roll group. For me, Meet the Beatles is a great great album. Sgt. Pepper? No thanks.
“Comparisons are odious.”
Zen saying
“All you need is love.”
Beatles
“All I want to do,
Is baby be friends with you.”
Dylan
I’m not sure the Zen saying was referring to friendly conversation starters about pop icons.
I’d reserve use of that word to when you’re doing something like comparing your life, success, failures to others. Then it really can turn into an “odious” exercise.
I love these comments, especially JohnBoy’s. But comparisons are irresistible, too.
Breaking it down in a left-brain sorta way:
Melodies? Beatles.
Lyrics? Dylan, but not by as much as people usually think.
Musical “genius” (whatever that means)? Argh. Do Lennon and McCartney equal Dylan? What about just Lennon?
Timing on the scene? Beatles, by a smidgen.
Influence on the popular culture in the Sixties? Beatles definitely
Influence on musical culture in the Sixties? Dylan definitely.
Influence on our culture four decades later? Dylan, I suppose.
In the Sixties, who left us with more great songs? I think the Beatles did.
Over the course of their careers, who left us with more great songs? Dylan.
Who showed the ability to change more and to take chances on change? Both, but Dylan lasted longer.
Who was truer to their art? Beatles, for sure.
Now, I’m confused.
beatles for their danceable and sing-along melodies and lyrics; dylan because i just want to figure out what he is saying
I’ll take John Prine over Dylan. Prine had better output over length of career, both lyrics and music. But then I also take Lennon over Dylan despite the shorter lifespan.
Neither, thanks.
If I could only have one or the other, it’d be The Beatles. I love Dylan (to a point), but I have to be in the mood for him. I can find something in The Beatles catalog to fit just about any mood.
And I’ll take a good moelody or vocal harmony over a good lyric any day. (Not that Dylan doesn’t have a lot of great melodies in his songs.) Hell, I appreciate Ringo’s drumbeat on Ticket to Ride more than any lyric I can think of by any artist. I guess I’m just not moved by lyrics as much as I am by melody, harmony and rhythm.
Dylan plagiarized . true story look it up. he ripped off several folkies.