both are excruciatingly horrible, IMHO

although the Byrds' one has a pleasant backdrop

it's just nothing, compared to the original

I think someone should keep looking for more covers of Bowie and Dylan and then judge.

I agree. Although I've never been able to take totally to Bowie -- he's too theatrical for me. Not that I don't admire Bowie as an artist, because I do. I think he's been just as influential as Dylan. It's just with Bowie I sense this wall of theatricality around him and it keeps me from feeling "close" to him as a listener, if that makes any sense.

Why judge based on covers on them when we can judge them based on the music they already made.

I guess you make a good point.

Dylan by a long shot. I like some of Bowies music, just not as much as Dylan. I think Dylan was a much better wordsmith. I don't agree that Bowie was as innovative and influential either. Bowie was more theatrical, more about his image. Dylan shunned his public Image, even famously revolted against it by going electric. Dylan is a bad ass.

You analysis is 100 percent correct.

Really? How would you say Bowie was innovative, which albums should I get to see Bowie at his most innovative? Was it just in the music you felt this or in his overall performance?

Give me examples of where you feel Dylan was a great wordsmith.

Don't just leave posts filled with fluff to make it seem like you think you know what you're talking about actually show something.

You're just an attention seeking fraud.

Bowie, easily. Dylan is okay but I've always thought he was kind of overrated, especially in the lyric department. Bowie had a more varied and more interesting career and... well... he played more instruments. Plus, most importantly, he wrote more songs that I like than Dylan did.

Here is industrial Bowie:



Show me industrial Dylan :D