The Beatles vs. Bob Dylan

[ARC]

Bob Dylan is overrated to a crazy degree...

So The Beatles win this by a landslide as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

Beatles without a doubt. I love Bob Dylan, but he ain't got shit on The Beatles.

[dalsh327]

Dylan musicially had a few choices to pick from - folk and blues. R&B was always a part of Dylan's music.

In the 70s, add reggae to it.

The Beatles were able to play a wider variety of music.

But the fact is that Dylan and The Beatles pushed each other into writing some great stuff...forget what the critics say, there was a lot of great stuff from 65-66 that a lot of people were doing, avant-garde was playing into rock..Zappa's first album was in '66 and was fairly high profile for someone who was as subversive as he was.

I think as far as rock bands go, Dylan had the better "Band" in 66 live. The Band is one of the best live rock bands of all time. The Live 1966 CD is pretty awesome, and "No Direction Home" is a great reminder to what makes Bob important. From Another Side to Blonde on Blonde, that's an unbelievable run for any artist.

Even George Harrison would've preferred to work with Dylan and the Band (and were good friends as well as wrote some songs together).There's 3 good bands Dylan has worked with - The Band, The Wilburys and Tom Petty's Heartbreakers. I know Axl had gotten to know Petty but not sure if he dropped in on any Wilbury sessions the way he did with Henley.

Sam Cooke, considered one of the great voices of all time, even said that it wasn't always about how good the voice is but what the voice is telling you and how it's delivered. One of the things about rock or blues is that being technically great isn't always important, but sometimes that off key note gives it character and flavor. Tom Waits has an affected voice, if you want to hear his "real" voice, it's on the first 2 albums "Closing Time" and "Heart of Saturday Night", and now his voice is aged enough that time and nature lets him do it without effort. A "rock and roll" voice is supposed to have some grit and not supposed to be polished. Flawless harmonies work, but James Brown works too. Robert Plant had his delivery, and Roger Daltrey had his, both of which are great in their way. Pete Townshend is not a great singer, but it's the soft, "feminine" to Roger's Alpha male delivery. Plant can go masculine and feminine...something like "Immigrant Song" it was more like call to going to war than anything else.

Which leads me back to The Beatles. John's voice is not technically perfect, but he can be vulnerable, he can be as good for screaming out those rock songs, as well as being a capable harmonist. I don't think George's voice was so great on its own, but it's distinctive. Ringo was not a bad singer, but not a great one. Paul's a good musician and a good singer, but he never would've made it out of an American Idol audition. Together they were amazing though.

Hard to say which is the better of the two. Songwriting, Dylan's the better one, way too many songs to mention. He gave what was considered a "fad" a legitimate voice. He validated rock and roll. "Don't Look Back" was nothing like what the Beatles had been like publicly... although we know Lennon held back but did make faces indicating that he thought the image was goofy, too.

I think Dylan did so much with imagery and was just a better lyricist. John and Paul wrote classics, but I think their emphasis was more on music and what was going to be a hit, and Dylan found a way to make his songs into being radio hits alongside Hermans Hermits and all the other bands of the day.

Musicially, The Beatles had zero problem writing melody and singing in harmony, but where the Beatles as a live band were goofy and clowning around, Dylan had total control of the audience, esp. with the folk stuff.

To me, one of the most important moments in rock music ever was when Dylan played an electric set at Newport. I'd even say it was the first "punk rock" moment because it was noisy as hell to the beard scratching folk crowd, aggressive and meant to piss everyone off. Lou Reed soon followed and blasted the 5 people that went to see Velvet Underground out of the room.

If it wasn't for Dylan, there wouldn't be a Sgt Pepper.

First, put on "Bringing It All Back Home", "Highway 61 Revisited" and "Blonde On Blonde" back to back, then "Live 1966"...

And then put on "Rubber Soul", "Help" and "Revolver". You'll see what I mean.

Then watch "Help", followed by "Don't Look Back" (or if you can find a copy of Dylan's Newport concerts on DVD called "The Other Side of the Mirror" I think).

[dirtylenny]

If it wasn't for Dylan, there wouldn't be a Sgt Pepper

How'd you reckon that one out?

[SpUd_Jr]

If it wasn't for Dylan, there wouldn't be a Sgt Pepper

How'd you reckon that one out?

Bob Dylan's early music inspired The Beatles to expand their writing on Rubber Soul.

Rubber Soul inspired Brian Wilson to create Pet Sounds.

Pet Sounds inspired The Beatles to write Sgt. Peppers.

[dirtylenny]

If it wasn't for Dylan, there wouldn't be a Sgt Pepper

How'd you reckon that one out?

Bob Dylan's early music inspired The Beatles to expand their writing on Rubber Soul.

Rubber Soul inspired Brian Wilson to create Pet Sounds.

Pet Sounds inspired The Beatles to write Sgt. Peppers.

Thats waaaay too big a stretch to say tha without Dylan Sgt Peppers wouldn't exist. Just because something awakens competiveness in you or even an idea doesn't make you or it responsible for the resultant product. I dont think Dylan was THAT inspirational to The Beatles. I just think (which unto itself is quite a big thing) Dylan came about at the right time for...well, pretty much exclusively Lennon to kinda spur him further on into more introspective writing and thats about the extent of it. Which, y'know, thats no small thing but then to say that Dylan in 1967, had anything outside of that to do with the document that is Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band is...well, ridiculous if you ask me.