blastingas10

My friends and I debated this topic for hours last night. I want to keep it going, I want to hear what more people have to say.

Dylan is my personal preference, but i feel like they are practically equals. I think Dylan is a better lyricist, he is more poetic. Even if you don't like Dylan, you can't deny how influential he was to the world of music. When it comes to their skill as instrumentalists, I think Dylan is easily overlooked by an untrained ear. Neil's guitar playing is more credited than Dylan's mainly because Neil plays such a loud electric guitar, it stands out more, it's more flashy. Dylan is a good guitarist though. Ever since I began playing guitar, I've realized that Dylan has more complex chord progressions and melodies. I've found some Dylan's songs to be harder to play and sing along with. But overall, I think Neil is the better guitarist. I've seen them both in concert and I think that over time Dylan has become a much better instrumentalist, and I haven't really noticed any increase in Neil's talent. I saw Dylan for the 4th time a few weeks ago, and I was amazed by how much better he's gotten. I never knew Dylan could play the organ as good as he was playing that night. If Neil is a better instrumentalist, he's not much better. It's very close.

What do you all think?

TheBig3

Within the S/S world, they're apples and oranges. Dylan on paper is still good writing. Neil on paper looks like a ****ing 10 year old. Simple rhymes, laconic observation, rote topics. But he's still a master, like Salinger, because he's about effect.

If we had to put a finer point on it, Dylan is Escalus, Young is Frank O'Hara; Dylan is truth by evidence, Young is truth by feel.

Dylan has a fingerpicking style all his own, Young could be the godfather of Radiohead. So when it comes to playing, i think its also not comparable. They aren't trying to strike the same nail, so I don't know that its smart to assume they are and compare them. Just the same, I prefer Dylan as well because he's aged a little better (musically).

__________________
I've moved to a new address

blastingas10

Very very good points made. I agree, they are completely different. But the Neil vs Bob debate is one of the most debated topics in music, like The Stones vs The Beatles. Of course it's not about who is better, I just enjoy the discussion.

blastingas10

Neil has been called the godfather of grunge

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

eh... Neil Young is more standable.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Necromancer

Neil Young all the way. I would personally prefer James Taylor or Cat Stevens over Dylan any day.as far as that goes.

blastingas10

No way, James Taylor cant even compare to Dylan. Dylan has a way wider range of musical styles. As for Cat Stevens, he's got a few good songs. Dylan came before them both, he was more innovative than both of them. James Taylor is way more traditional than Dylan, Dylan went outside the boundaries of music at his time. I think Stevens is more creative than Taylor as well. Dylan influenced them both. Dylan left a bigger mark on music than either one of them. Dylan was a much better lyricist. I'll stick with Dylan all the way.

Howard the Duck

i used to say that Dylan is superior to Young

now that I have more Young in my collection, i can't really say for sure

i can't say i like a Dylan song more than "After the Goldrush" but on a whole, Dylan beats Young just by that bit much

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

Lisnaholic

... with his poignant voice, but because this is true ...

... I consider Dylan to be streets ahead of Neil Y.

blastingas10

Dylan is more of an artist.