Bob Dylan Vs. David Bowie

Neapolitan · 08-30-2012, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck

both are excruciatingly horrible, IMHO

although the Byrds' one has a pleasant backdrop

it's just nothing, compared to the original

I like Kevin Barnes as a singer, he has a unique sound to his voice. I thought it was awesome, too bad you missed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ki

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

Genreally when people talk about how influential a artist is they don't mention who, here at least you have a firsthand of who they influenced. And it's a way of seeing how well there song does apart from them. Sometimes times people can't judge art apart from the artist eg they might not like the sound of Dylan's nasal whine, and not give his lyrics a chance. It's a way of thinking outside the box for a moment, just to get a slightly more objective pov of their talant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

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.

Dylan's lyrics are a bit ambiguous. It's up to the listener to fill in the blanks for the meaning of the song, even if it wasn't Bob intention. They are taking away something from the song Dylan didn't intend. So he's somewhat overrate there.

I would pick Dylan as the better musician. Bob Dylan shows an amazing talent for playing the Folk guitar in his early days, and is a bit radical on the harmonica.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

I guess you make a good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franco Pepe Kalle

You analysis is 100 percent correct.