Bob Dylan has a shit voice, but I fetishize songs, not voices. Dylan takes it for his words and songwriting, for putting together stunning images and verses that flow like conversation and gorgeous melodies (that, admittedly, he trips around like a drunk, suggesting rather than singing them). I simply cannot fuck with Dylan.

Young I can take or leave. He can move me when he rocks harder, but lots of people can rock hard. When he gets quieter, he still doesn't hit me like Dylan's words and music do.

So Dylan.

That said, I think Young would put on a better concert.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:To paraphrase Kenneth Rexroth (on D.H. Lawrence): Neil Young is a major poet; Bob Dylan is a minor prophet. Dylan's is the greater tradition.

That works for me.

bob dylan for masters of war.


and maybe pawn in there game. niel youngs good though Zuma the best.

---

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:To paraphrase Kenneth Rexroth (on D.H. Lawrence): Neil Young is a major poet; Bob Dylan is a minor prophet. Dylan's is the greater tradition.

Minor (cough) "prophet?"

Dylan has written some fine songs. Some of my friends have written better. Dylan has fucked a lot of hippie chicks. Some of my friends have fucked more. Dylan has written a few truly precious lines ("God said to Abraham, 'Kill me a son...'" comes to mind), but some of my friends have written better ("I'll hold his arms, you fuck him. Fuck him with something, the fuck, he deserves it" comes to mind). Dylan has had a huge influence on the singers and songwriters of his era. I guess we could have saved us a lot of bullshit if he had stayed in Minnesota.

Dylan has his merits, but he is the single most over-rated and over-lauded musician of my lifetime. He is a fine and worthy artist. There are probably ten finer, more worthy ones reading this message board right now.

Neil Young, I like almost everything about the guy except his occasional lapses into jingoism, and his expressionistic guitar playing is better than any musical element in Bob Dylan's oeuvre.

No contest. Neil.

---

steve wrote:
Dylan has written some fine songs. Some of my friends have written better.

Wrong.

steve wrote:Dylan has fucked a lot of hippie chicks. Some of my friends have fucked more.

Wrong.

steve wrote:Dylan has written a few truly precious lines ("God said to Abraham, 'Kill me a son...'" comes to mind), but some of my friends have written better ("I'll hold his arms, you fuck him. Fuck him with something, the fuck, he deserves it" comes to mind).

Wrong.

steve wrote:Dylan has his merits, but he is the single most over-rated and over-lauded musician of my lifetime. He is a fine and worthy artist. There are probably ten finer, more worthy ones reading this message board right now.

Spectacularly Wrong!!!

But you know this. You're just being "provocative."

"Rapeman." "Songs About Fucking." Fucking. All the fucking Fucking.

So provocative! So tiresome!

sunlore wrote:Neil is just... not good at it at all.

This statement is incorrect.

I might be wrong, but I suspect that your familiarity with Neil Young might be somewhat limited. That's fine. A person can talk only about Neil Young's major hit songs and still argue that he is absolutely golden. For example, the lyrics in "After The Gold Rush", "Ohio", "Southern Man" and "Rockin' In The Free World" are great. At the time "Freedom" was released, the lyrics in "Rockin' In The Free World" affected me in a specific and meaningful way, and these lyrics still hold great power and value for me today.

Neil Young also wrote the following line: "Every junky's like a setting sun", which is from a famous Neil Young song. Do you know it? You should, at least if you're discounting his talents.

Neil Young also wrote "Cortez The Killer".

Neil Young also wrote the lyrics on the album "Tonight's The Night".

All of the aforementioned items are great achievements in rock music. And this is just a short discussion of the immediately recognizable rock radio songs. There is much, much more to discuss.

Neil Young is, in fact, "good at it". I don't think it's easy to argue otherwise. In fact, I'm not sure that it's even possible to argue otherwise.

It's actually kind of a bummer to feel compelled to explain things that I find so self-evident.

I'm Sorry steve but i just don't think you can compare the two as guitar players as they both have different styles and backgrounds. you listen to there early work. Dylan has a picking style and off timing to his chords that make him sound completely different to young, and hardly has use for the guitar solo (although he is partial to an over the top harmonica solo). He is an artist that relies more on the content of his lyrics and general mood of his songs, he's stuck with this for almost all his career.

Young's earlier efforts on the other hand takes his particular influences from such early blues artists as muddy waters, robert johnson. Zuma is a far cry from harvest that 3 years must have been tough on the guy cause zuma piss's over harvest. At times zuma seems to be youngs attempt to recreate the zepplin sound evident in 'parden my heart' This is just my opinion and i could be wrong but they are are different artist in different genres that lived around the same time.

This post of dylan vs. young is like blues vs. folk.

Greendale actually has some excellent songs on it, like carmichael, bandit and grandpa's interview. Plus, my version that I bought used for 8 bucks has a bonus DVD of an entire solo concert.

---