The Beatles Vs Bob Dylan

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Vote!

[celtopunk]

Bob Dylan has Bob Dylan

Beatles had Sir Paul McCartney that insufferable wanker. The fact that he continues to live and breath continues to tarnish the Beatles.

[harris0]

Love both...but the beatles get my vote.

John Lennon (solo) made the communist manifesto a hit song in "Imagine"

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

I refuse to choose.

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by Blue Collar [email protected] 09, 2006 07:37 am
I refuse to choose.
You MUST choose and you MUST explain your vote!!!

[Chocobo]

Beatles, because I like them more :blush: "I'm a loser", ah, such a great song to depress with.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Ironically, these are my two favorite artists of popular music.
Have to go with The Beatles, though

[Phalanx]

The Beatles were probably more influential, but I like Dylans' stuff alot more.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Were the Beatles really that influential?
In what, the psychedelic movement? Did they start that? I don't think so.
How were they influential?

[Phalanx]

So many musicians decided to pick up instruments after seeing them on the Sullivan show. No, they didn't create rock (that credit goes to Chuck Berry or Robert Johnson), but they pushed it into pop culture.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They pushed it into pop culture?
Elvis is often credited with pushing rock n roll into pop culture... and he did that roughly 5 years before the Beatles existed.

And Robert Johnson has never been credited as the creator of rock n roll. He was an influence in its creation, but he died long before anything that we call "rock" was around.
The credit, as you said, generally goes to Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, Jackie Wilson, etc.

[Sir Aunty Christ]

I'll go for Dylan - just.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 09, 2006 10:22 am
Were the Beatles really that influential?
In what, the psychedelic movement? Did they start that? I don't think so.
How were they influential?
I think they did tons for pop music. The level of experimentation that they embarked on with albums like Revolver or the White Album was unprecedented. I doubt albums like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, or hell I'd even say The Smashing Pumpkins Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness would have been possible. Dylan has said many times that his move to go electric was in a large part inspired by the Beatles, and the Beatles have many times said how much they loved and admired Dylan's lyrical prowess so I think if you're a true fan of music, its impossible to pick between the two. Their influences are both too great for measure.

[FriedFrog]

Bob Dylan. I love folk, so what more can I say?

[coda]

============

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 09, 2006 11:30 am
Ironically, these are my two favorite artists of popular music.
You're not alone on that one


Were the Beatles really that influential?
In what, the psychedelic movement? Did they start that? I don't think so.
How were they influential?

I assume they were key in bringing to the masses things that, if they wouldn't have been "promoted" by very popular and "established" artists, might have been mostly ignored. In that sense they were both doing a "progressive" action but at the same time turning it all into "part of the system" (!)



PLEASE people STOP making this stupid polls. I'd have preferred this to be an actual debate


Oh, and most of the Beatles' albums are very overrated. The "White Album" has about 7 crappy songs, and only Abbey Road and Revolver are that good.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 07:22 am
Bob Dylan has Bob Dylan

Beatles had Sir Paul McCartney that insufferable wanker. The fact that he continues to live and breath continues to tarnish the Beatles.
Say what you want about him, he was a creative talent and the Beatles wouldn't have been anywhere near as good without him.

[( R )evolution]

I like Bob Dylan cause his lyrics are pretty cool, and I like his voice when he sings lol

[harris0]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 09, 2006 03:22 pm
Were the Beatles really that influential?
In what, the psychedelic movement? Did they start that? I don't think so.
How were they influential?
The beatles are pop music.

[Pirate Utopian]

Dylan owns the beatles, end of the disscusion

[Zero]

Errrgg... Thats such a hard decision.

I love both, but I have to go with Dylan. Hurricane.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Love both...but the beatles get my vote.

John Lennon (solo) made the communist manifesto a hit song in "Imagine"

Amazing Song.

[bezdomni]

Beatles 100%

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by harris0+December 09, 2006 06:19 pm--> (harris0 @ December 09, 2006 06:19 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 09, 2006 03:22 pm
Were the Beatles really that influential?
In what, the psychedelic movement? Did they start that? I don't think so.
How were they influential?
The beatles are pop music. [/b]
What the fuck does that even mean? Comercially succesful popular music? Popular music with catchy hooks?

[Knight of Cydonia]

i would like to say that the beatles was the better artist than bob dylan....
because i'm a fan of the beatles :lol:

[kjt1981]

DYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Love them both, but Dylan, for me, is God.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 10:35 am
DYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Love them both, but Dylan, for me, is God.
I noticed how much you like Bob Dylan by the vast quantities of repeating letters your used to spell his name.

[Pawn Power]

I enjoy them both as well. I think a better poll would have been The Beatles vs Lennon, in which case everyone would have to vote Lennon.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 14, 2006 05:28 pm
I think a better poll would have been The Beatles vs Lennon, in which case everyone would have to vote Lennon.
Then everyone would be wrong. <_<

[liberationjunky]

I love them both and have seen Dylan preform twice but I still defently gotta go with the beatles because they are much more innovative and have had a greater impact on music (at least in my opinion).

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Pawn [email protected] 14, 2006 01:28 pm
I enjoy them both as well. I think a better poll would have been The Beatles vs Lennon, in which case everyone would have to vote Lennon.
:wacko:

[Wanted Man]

Silly poll. It&#39;s like comparing apples and oranges. Dylan for me though.

[cb9's_unity]

To be honest i havn&#39;t heard to much of dylan. I love the beatles though and i&#39;ve been hearing them around my house since i was born.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+December 14, 2006 02:56 pm--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ December 14, 2006 02:56 pm)
Pawn [email protected] 14, 2006 01:28 pm
I enjoy them both as well. I think a better poll would have been The Beatles vs Lennon, in which case everyone would have to vote Lennon.
:wacko: [/b]
What?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

you&#39;re fucking insane and/or have the musical taste of a deaf man

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 14, 2006 08:38 pm
you&#39;re fucking insane and/or have the musical taste of a deaf man
Thats harsh. I prefer his lyrics more than anything else.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don&#39;t think that John Lennon is a very noteworthy lyricist. Even for leftists. As a leftist, John was a lightweight. He was a liberal reformist at best. He was used by the liberal activist leaders of the time to draw support and attention for the anti-war movement and the black panthers, etc.

While there may have been some genuinely leftist agendas and genuine leftists in the aforementioned political movements, John himself was neither a genuine leftist or very much in touch with genuine leftist agendas.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 14, 2006 09:39 pm
I don&#39;t think that John Lennon is a very noteworthy lyricist. Even for leftists. As a leftist, John was a lightweight. He was a liberal reformist at best.

While there may have been some genuinely leftist agendas and genuine leftists in the aforementioned political movements, John himself was neither a genuine leftist or very much in touch with genuine leftist agendas.
I agree. He was an artist much more then a political activist.

That does not make my prefere him less then The Beatles, who I like as well but who had even less to do with politics.


He was used by the liberal activist leaders of the time to draw support and attention for the anti-war movement and the black panthers, etc.

Whats wrong with that?

[celtopunk]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+December 09, 2006 06:22 pm--> (Invader Zim @ December 09, 2006 06:22 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 07:22 am
Bob Dylan has Bob Dylan

Beatles had Sir Paul McCartney that insufferable wanker. The fact that he continues to live and breath continues to tarnish the Beatles.
Say what you want about him, he was a creative talent and the Beatles wouldn&#39;t have been anywhere near as good without him. [/b]
I won&#39;t argue with you on that, however even you use the word "WAS" in relation to his "talent".

I heard that horrible Christmas song of his today and it made me want to kill people, or maybe just him.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+December 15, 2006 12:07 am--> (Pawn Power @ December 15, 2006 12:07 am)
Dr. [email protected] 14, 2006 09:39 pm
I don&#39;t think that John Lennon is a very noteworthy lyricist. Even for leftists. As a leftist, John was a lightweight. He was a liberal reformist at best.

While there may have been some genuinely leftist agendas and genuine leftists in the aforementioned political movements, John himself was neither a genuine leftist or very much in touch with genuine leftist agendas.
I agree. He was an artist much more then a political activist.

That does not make my prefere him less then The Beatles, who I like as well but who had even less to do with politics.


He was used by the liberal activist leaders of the time to draw support and attention for the anti-war movement and the black panthers, etc.

Whats wrong with that? [/b]
So you&#39;re saying that even thought John&#39;s solo material is lyrically weak as political commentary, it&#39;s good enough to trump all of The Beatles&#39;s pop genius.

[Angry Young Man]

Beatles didn&#39;t have a social conscience. John did. Otherwise "Imagine" would have been by the Beatles.
Dylan was always aware.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2006 08:27 pm
Silly poll. It&#39;s like comparing apples and oranges. Dylan for me though.
Oranges. Bittersweet and bold. Juicy and not woody in texture.

[kjt1981]

Originally posted by RedStarOverYorkshire+December 15, 2006 07:29 pm--> (RedStarOverYorkshire @ December 15, 2006 07:29 pm)
[email protected] 14, 2006 08:27 pm
Silly poll. It&#39;s like comparing apples and oranges. Dylan for me though.
Oranges. Bittersweet and bold. Juicy and not woody in texture. [/b]
:wacko:
i cant believe youve said that apples are miles better you arse&#33; oranges you have to deal with the pips and the peel is a nightmare to get off&#33;&#33;&#33;

FFS.

[Invader Zim]

I personally can&#39;t believe that Bob Dylan is beating the Beatles&#33; While Dylans lyrics are undeniably more socialy concious and arguably better period; the Beatles as music makers shit all over Dylan.


A friend of mine summed up how good the Beatles are for me the other day while lambasting the song November Rain by GnR, he said that took seven/eight years to create GnR&#39;s best song but in the same period of time the Beatles changed the world.

Nothing against Bob (or November Rain for that matter), I love his work, but he has not changed the world.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+December 09, 2006 01:22 pm--> (Invader Zim @ December 09, 2006 01:22 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2006 07:22 am
Bob Dylan has Bob Dylan

Beatles had Sir Paul McCartney that insufferable wanker. The fact that he continues to live and breath continues to tarnish the Beatles.
Say what you want about him, he was a creative talent and the Beatles wouldn&#39;t have been anywhere near as good without him. [/b]
Yes, but clearly he was the worst and ugliest Beatle.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Pawn Power+December 16, 2006 01:54 am--> (Pawn Power @ December 16, 2006 01:54 am)
Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 09, 2006 01:22 pm

[email protected] 09, 2006 07:22 am
Bob Dylan has Bob Dylan

Beatles had Sir Paul McCartney that insufferable wanker. The fact that he continues to live and breath continues to tarnish the Beatles.
Say what you want about him, he was a creative talent and the Beatles wouldn&#39;t have been anywhere near as good without him.
Yes, but clearly he was the worst and ugliest Beatle. [/b]
In what way do you mean worst? The many of the songs he wrote number among the best the Beatles ever made and in terms of ugly Ringo wins that coveted honour.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Paul was a cutie. George was a sexy hunk of manliness.
both are about equally ugly nowadays

[TheMachine]

The Beatles.

Their music is more beautiful and vast. oh and happy&#33;

Plus they usually have a good lesson.

[MiniOswald]

Dylan, Beatles are overrated, people always saying they were the most influencial band, and that music wouldnt be the same without them, what a load of crap.

[gilhyle]

A better poll might have been who wrote better political songs - Dylan or Lennon.....but THEN Dylan would have won hands down &#33; (Although I dont agree about Lennon&#39;s politics - I suspect much of the information about what he was really up to in the early 70s remains suppressed.)

[Tekun]

Im a hiphop enthusiast, but some of Bob Dylan&#39;s work is awsome
Dylan&#33;

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

John&#39;s political activism was lame to the max.
He sat on a fucking bed.
George did the fucking concert for Bangladesh with coherent goals and real consequences, but everybody keeps talking about John sitting on his fucking bed and putting up &#39;happy chistmas&#39; on billboards.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by kjt1981+December 15, 2006 08:06 pm--> (kjt1981 @ December 15, 2006 08:06 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 07:29 pm

[email protected] 14, 2006 08:27 pm
Silly poll. It&#39;s like comparing apples and oranges. Dylan for me though.
Oranges. Bittersweet and bold. Juicy and not woody in texture.
:wacko:
i cant believe youve said that apples are miles better you arse&#33; oranges you have to deal with the pips and the peel is a nightmare to get off&#33;&#33;&#33;

FFS. [/b]
Apples are hard and largely tasteless. There&#39;s no way of telling if an apple is ripe or over/under-ripe. Plus it&#39;s a nightmare to eat around the core. The skin of an orange is easy to peel: roll it between the flats of your hands to loosen and then peel. Or cut it into 8. That&#39;s incredibly satisfying.
Apples are bourgeois&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 16, 2006 05:35 am
Paul was a cutie. George was a sexy hunk of manliness.
both are about equally ugly nowadays
George is dead. Show some respect. Anyway the only one that had a social conscience, I think, is John. I sometimes wish I was at Live8 just for when Paul McCartney came on, I could see if I could get everyone chanting "WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; ",etc

[Sabocat]

The Beatles were the N&#39;Sync of their day.

Beatles = suck

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 12:35 pm
Dylan, Beatles are overrated, people always saying they were the most influencial band, and that music wouldnt be the same without them, what a load of crap.
Actually it&#39;s true and obviously so. They popularised a whole genre of music and then influenced the artists who popularised and numberous others.

[The Grey Blur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 07:35 pm
The Beatles were the N&#39;Sync of their day.

Beatles = suck
Fuck you&#39;re an idiot

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+December 16, 2006 08:28 pm--> (Invader Zim @ December 16, 2006 08:28 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2006 12:35 pm
Dylan, Beatles are overrated, people always saying they were the most influencial band, and that music wouldnt be the same without them, what a load of crap.
Actually it&#39;s true and obviously so. They popularised a whole genre of music and then influenced the artists who popularised and numberous others. [/b]
What genre? Rock n roll?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by RedStarOverYorkshire+December 16, 2006 04:31 pm--> (RedStarOverYorkshire @ December 16, 2006 04:31 pm)
Dr. [email protected] 16, 2006 05:35 am
Paul was a cutie. George was a sexy hunk of manliness.
both are about equally ugly nowadays
George is dead. Show some respect. Anyway the only one that had a social conscience, I think, is John. I sometimes wish I was at Live8 just for when Paul McCartney came on, I could see if I could get everyone chanting "WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; WE WANT JOHN&#33; ",etc [/b]
His corpse looks better than living Paul. How is this dissrespect? Fuckin Christ almighty.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

The correct answer is:

B) The Beatles

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+December 17, 2006 02:57 am--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ December 17, 2006 02:57 am)
Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 16, 2006 08:28 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 12:35 pm
Dylan, Beatles are overrated, people always saying they were the most influencial band, and that music wouldnt be the same without them, what a load of crap.
Actually it&#39;s true and obviously so. They popularised a whole genre of music and then influenced the artists who popularised and numberous others.
What genre? Rock n roll? [/b]
Rock &#39;n&#39; Roll was already well into it&#39;s stride, though undeniably they certainly gave it even further mass appeal, however I was thinking more about Psychedelic rock and the development of rock music in general.

[Ol' Dirty]

The beatles were cool, but I like Dylan a hell of a lot. His stuff is more poetic, and his weird voice is really cool.

[Enragé]

Bob Dylan beats the shit out of the beatles

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+December 17, 2006 01:20 pm--> (Invader Zim @ December 17, 2006 01:20 pm)
Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 17, 2006 02:57 am

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 16, 2006 08:28 pm

[email protected] 16, 2006 12:35 pm
Dylan, Beatles are overrated, people always saying they were the most influencial band, and that music wouldnt be the same without them, what a load of crap.
Actually it&#39;s true and obviously so. They popularised a whole genre of music and then influenced the artists who popularised and numberous others.
What genre? Rock n roll?
Rock &#39;n&#39; Roll was already well into it&#39;s stride, though undeniably they certainly gave it even further mass appeal, however I was thinking more about Psychedelic rock and the development of rock music in general. [/b]
They did not popularize rock or psychedelic rock. They were not the only important performers of rock at the time, enigma. Who popularized rock along with the Beatles and at the same as The Beatles and arguably better than the Beatles? Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jackie Wilson, Elvis Presley, The Four Seasons, Little Richard, Bill Haley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Eddie Cochran, Roy Orbison, Bo Diddley, The Everly Bros., Buddy Holly, The Rolling Stones, and many, many others. These are just artists from the early sixties.

[Cyanide Suicide]

I would have to say The Beatles. I love Bob Dylan more lyrically, but his music was pretty restrictive and predictable. The beatles&#39; music varied and it was all (or mostly all) great. Two great choices, but yeah I&#39;d have to say Beatles.

[Janus]

Hard decision. I think I&#39;ll have to go with Dylan though but just barely.

[Invader Zim]

They did not popularize rock or psychedelic rock.

Actually the "British invasion" undesputably instrumental (no pun intened, but I like it) in the development of rock music on both sides of the Atlantic and I doubt we are going to have to discuss the importance of the Beatles in the "British invasion". I never claimed they invented rock music or rock &#39;n&#39; roll, but they certainly popularised and aided its development beyond any other force both before and sinse, that they sold in excess of 500 million records (according to the Guiness Book of Records) and out sold Elvis in the US is testiment to that fact. We can discuss who invented rock music till the sun goes down, but the Beatles are beyond any shadow of doubt one of the most influencial music groups of all time.


and arguably better than the Beatles?

Well that is a matter of opinion, what is not is that the Beatles sold more records and popularised the genre more than any of their predecessors or those who followed after them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It&#39;s not completely clear to me what you mean by "popularizing" rock, but I can tell you&#39;re overjudging their importance a lot.
If you mean that they made rock popular, that is untrue. If you mean that they made it more popular than it previously was, that&#39;s probably true, but to a rather limited extent.

To say that they were the most important artists in the development of rock music is quite clearly an overstatement.

[Pawn Power]

Just read this today,

Lennon was the target of increasingly aggressive media ridicule... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1975140,00.html)

This shit with the voter registration was boring and probably impracticale but a least he was not totally complacent.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 18, 2006 10:34 pm
It&#39;s not completely clear to me what you mean by "popularizing" rock, but I can tell you&#39;re overjudging their importance a lot.
If you mean that they made rock popular, that is untrue. If you mean that they made it more popular than it previously was, that&#39;s probably true, but to a rather limited extent.

To say that they were the most important artists in the development of rock music is quite clearly and overstatement.
please elaborate, at the moment you are simply contradicting me without providing any evidence or even reasons why I may be incorrect.

Just take the influence on Heavy Metal, with Helter Skelter and the Who&#39;s "I Can See For Miles".

[Honggweilo]

Bob Dylan. Period. Thats b4 here became a friggin zealot :(

He also pwnd the harmonica like no other, me wubs playing harmonica :wub:

[dark fairy]

los beatles :D
i can&#39;t imagine a world without them :P