Neil Young

Rock N' Roll Clown · 10-13-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

On a side note, it's a popular belief that young can sing good and dylan can't. I completely disagree. It's Neil's falsetto that gives people this impression. When you listen to songs like buffalo Springfields "mr. Soul" you can clearly hear that Neil doesnt have a very good vocal ability other than his falsetto. I'll take the vocals of Dylan's "one more cup of coffee" over any vocal performance of Neil. Bobs voice was ever changing, Neil's is always the same.

Yes, actually, none of them is a good singer, but that doesn't make them less good musicians. The trick is to know how to use your voice and they both know. In the first half of their careers Young's voice was better, he sang so beautifully, but, as you said, his voice is always the same, while Dylan's husky voice in his 90s and 2000s albums is just amazing.

Surell · 10-16-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

Neil young really isn't that much better musically than Dylan. I saw them both live last year, I was blown away with how good Dylan was at the organ. Of course Neil blew me away as well but he hasn't really progressed as a musician as much as Dylan. Neil youngs acoustic music is every bit as much as simple as bob Dylans. I might even give the edge to bob. Songs like "I was young when I left home" demonstrate a great fingerpicking ability that Bob possessed. That level of fingerpicking combined with singing at the same time surpasses anything that Neil did on a level of difficulty. Another example of great Dylan picking is on the track "buckets of rain". It's Neil's electric playing that gives him the edge on Dylan. But from my experience as a guitarist, the fingerpicking of Dylan is still more difficult than Neil's electric soloing. But it's the tone and style that makes Neil's electric guitar playing great, not the level of difficulty.

They're pretty musically equal in my opinion, being that they both have something different to offer.

I'm sorry, but Bob Dylan hasn't done much anything interesting music-wise since he started, and Neil's been trying things hardly attempted by rockers, folkies, or pop music in general at least since "Broken Arrow." His acoustics may not be as difficult or whatever but at least their more melodically interesting. I'd take "Needle and the Damage Done" over "Blowin in the Wind" or "Times they are blah blah" just for the melody alone. We can argue technicality or lyricism, but as far as the music is concerned, Neil (mostly) makes music, not words with accompaniment. I appreciate this more, in fact, because that inseparability of music and lyrics makes it much more essential.

blastingas10 · 10-13-2012, 05:55 PM

I think they both have great voices. Like you said, they know how to use it. To me it's never been about vocal range or prowess, it's about the emotion and the sincerity that is in the voice. And to me, there aren't many better at that then Dylan and young.

Rock N' Roll Clown · 10-13-2012, 06:34 PM

Yeah, of course the most important things for a singer are the emotion, the sincerity and so on, but it's always been better when he has a wider vocal range. Don't you think that if Dylan and Young had wide vocal ranges, instead of their poor ones, they would make even better music.

blastingas10 · 10-15-2012, 09:30 AM

I don't think so. I love their voices and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes more is less and vice versa.

blastingas10 · 10-17-2012, 12:28 AM

The melody in "needle and the damage done" isn't any stronger than a song like "love minus zero". Just the fact that the only song you mention are two of his most famous just goes to show that you must not know his music very well. I'll take a song like "buckets of rain" over "needle and the damage done" just based on guitar playing alone. Although the subject matter and feeling is a lot more serious than the upbeat Dylan song. Bob has melodic songs and he has songs that are less focused on melody where the lyrics are more important. He can go either way.

I love them both and I would agree that music and melody are more dominant in youngs music overall. But it depends on which Dylan albums you're listening if you want to hear more melodic songs. Most songs from the era of the ones you mentioned aren't going to be very melodic or musical but that changed with time.

Rock N' Roll Clown · 10-17-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

love them both and I would agree that music and melody are more dominant in youngs music overall. But it depends on which Dylan albums you're listening if you want to hear more melodic songs. Most songs from the era of the ones you mentioned aren't going to be very melodic or musical but that changed with time.

That's what I was saying. Young's melody-writing is just fabulous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plankton

Neil's guitar solo'ing usually makes me cringe at times, but I can appreciate the emotion he puts into it.

Yes, he is quite bad guitarist technically, but I've hardly ever seen someone to play with that emotion, which actually makes him a very good guitarist.

10-17-2012, 08:41 AM

I'd definitely disagree with Surrell's assertion that Dylan's work consisted mostly of lyrics with sparse, uninteresting musical accompaniment. His musical talent is really demonstrated on Highway 61 and even more so in Blonde on Blonde. It's most apparent for me in Nashville Skyline. Even his most famous songs have a great melody to them, it's just most carried through the vocals and harmonica on tracks like "The Times are a-Changin".

That being said, I'd actually agree that Neil Young's music can often surpass Dylan's in scope, depth, and that aching, sorrowful beauty found on tracks like "Cortez the Killer", "Needle and the damage done", "Long may you run", etc.

I connect with Dylan's music on a completely different level than Young's, so it's really difficult for me to pick a favorite.

blastingas10 · 10-17-2012, 10:32 AM

I feel pretty much the same way as you, Conan. Neil touches me a little deeper than Bob does. As you said, theres a little more sorrow and sadness in the music of young, but then when I listen to Dylan songs like "I was young when I left home", "sign on the window", "tomorrow is a long time", to name a few, I'm reminded that Dylan can move me just a much as young. I think I prefer Dylan because he was more consistent, in my opinion.

Plankton · 10-17-2012, 10:42 AM

Neil's guitar solo'ing usually makes me cringe at times, but I can appreciate the emotion he puts into it. I've got quite a few of his tunes in my collection and have found myself having a "Neil session" every once in a while. Cowgirl In The Sand, and Helpless get a lot of play in those sessions.

10-13-2012, 06:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
Rock N' Roll Clown Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 169	Yeah, of course the most important things for a singer are the emotion, the sincerity and so on, but it's always been better when he has a wider vocal range. Don't you think that if Dylan and Young had wide vocal ranges, instead of their poor ones, they would make even better music. __________________

10-17-2012, 12:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	The melody in "needle and the damage done" isn't any stronger than a song like "love minus zero". Just the fact that the only song you mention are two of his most famous just goes to show that you must not know his music very well. I'll take a song like "buckets of rain" over "needle and the damage done" just based on guitar playing alone. Although the subject matter and feeling is a lot more serious than the upbeat Dylan song. Bob has melodic songs and he has songs that are less focused on melody where the lyrics are more important. He can go either way. I love them both and I would agree that music and melody are more dominant in youngs music overall. But it depends on which Dylan albums you're listening if you want to hear more melodic songs. Most songs from the era of the ones you mentioned aren't going to be very melodic or musical but that changed with time. Last edited by blastingas10; 10-17-2012 at 12:43 AM.

10-17-2012, 10:42 AM	#10 (permalink)
Plankton Just Keep Swimming... Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: See signature... Posts: 7,765	Neil's guitar solo'ing usually makes me cringe at times, but I can appreciate the emotion he puts into it. I've got quite a few of his tunes in my collection and have found myself having a "Neil session" every once in a while. Cowgirl In The Sand, and Helpless get a lot of play in those sessions. __________________ See location...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-13-2012, 05:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I think they both have great voices. Like you said, they know how to use it. To me it's never been about vocal range or prowess, it's about the emotion and the sincerity that is in the voice. And to me, there aren't many better at that then Dylan and young.

10-15-2012, 09:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I don't think so. I love their voices and I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes more is less and vice versa.

10-17-2012, 08:41 AM	#8 (permalink)
someonecompletelyrandom Guest Posts: n/a	I'd definitely disagree with Surrell's assertion that Dylan's work consisted mostly of lyrics with sparse, uninteresting musical accompaniment. His musical talent is really demonstrated on Highway 61 and even more so in Blonde on Blonde. It's most apparent for me in Nashville Skyline. Even his most famous songs have a great melody to them, it's just most carried through the vocals and harmonica on tracks like "The Times are a-Changin". That being said, I'd actually agree that Neil Young's music can often surpass Dylan's in scope, depth, and that aching, sorrowful beauty found on tracks like "Cortez the Killer", "Needle and the damage done", "Long may you run", etc. I connect with Dylan's music on a completely different level than Young's, so it's really difficult for me to pick a favorite.

10-17-2012, 10:32 AM	#9 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I feel pretty much the same way as you, Conan. Neil touches me a little deeper than Bob does. As you said, theres a little more sorrow and sadness in the music of young, but then when I listen to Dylan songs like "I was young when I left home", "sign on the window", "tomorrow is a long time", to name a few, I'm reminded that Dylan can move me just a much as young. I think I prefer Dylan because he was more consistent, in my opinion.