Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Honestly, if you asked Lennon (RIP), McCartney, Harrison (RIP) and Starr they would agree with that statement. I think Lennon especially was a bit intimatated by Dylan.Considering how noticeably affected/influenced by Dylan's writing they were, I think they definitely would agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Frank Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 Considering how noticeably affected/influenced by Dylan's writing they were, I think they definitely would agree.Although I do think the affect/influence was two-way. I'm sure Dylan respected The Beatles and craved some of what they had. Remeber the fuss about the Norwegan Wood/4th Time Around comparisons. They are basically the same tune but they argued over who wrote it first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 "and I, I never took much, I never asked for your crutch, now don't ask for mine."Â I love that line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 i can't really argue with someone who thinks Dylan was better or more important than The Beatles... but just realize that saying that or thinking is likely a much more "controversial" statement than saying the Beatles aren't all that. Dylan has always been a much much more polarizing figure & musician than The Beatles. but even though i love both, i'd agree with the person above that musically/instrument/soundscape wise, Dylan didn't really bring that much new to to the table. You can't say the same for The Beatles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wild Frank Posted October 9, 2009 Author Share Posted October 9, 2009 "and I, I never took much, I never asked for your crutch, now don't ask for mine."Â I love that line.Don't get me started on Dylan lyrics!!!. But I've just got to say: "Ain't It Just Like The Night To Play Tricks When You're Trying To Be So Quiet". Thats a nice line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 musically/instrument/soundscape wise, Dylan didn't really bring that much new to to the table. OK this thread's gittin xrazy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't know. I think Dylan brought new things to the table musically. Not as much studio trickery as the Beatles, but his "thin, wild mercury" sound is equally worthy of acclaim. But it's really pointless to compare them. Â I certainly respect the Beatles. And don't think they're a bad band at all. They just don't hit me the same way that Dylan and some other bands do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mjpuczko Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 kyle, i generally agree with you but that statements a tad off. that thin wild mercury sound? infusing great lyrics with rock n roll? no one did that before dylan. i wouldn't say he changed the recording process like the beatles. or all the weird shit floyd was doing bck then but he offered a lot musically. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 i was talking in a straight instrumentation/studio sense. not saying anything about his music in general. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 As for bands, I think the Kinks and the Who were better bands during that span. Obviously this is just my personal preference, but I think Davies and Townshend were writing better songs than Lennon and McCartney.I knew you'd say The Kinks, and they're the one band who I think gave the Fabs a run for their money, but I also don't think they ever topped them. The Who, though? Wow. I mean, they were a great band and all, but... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 i was talking in a straight instrumentation/studio sense. not saying anything about his music in general. Nothing sounded like Blonde On Blonde before Blonde On Blonde. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Nothing sounded like Blonde On Blonde before Blonde On Blonde. maybe sounding like the album as a whole, no, but there weren't exactly that many groundbreaking musical passages or studio breakthroughs on that record either. The Beatles just showed SO SO much growth from 1964 to 1968 it's kind of hard to even fathom in my head still. i'd agree with people that Dylan started out ahead of the Beatles, but they quickly passed him up in that time period. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I took your statement solace as separate from the Beatles/Dylan comparison. Hence the Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 The Beatles were a good little band, but they certainly were no Grateful Dead.  How ironic that this thread was started on what would have been John's 69th birthday. There are other bands I like better (Stones, Dylan, etc.) but the Fabs were the very best that pop music has had to offer. Ever. Hell, if it wasn't for George doing things like The Inner Light or Within You Without You how many of us Westerners would have been exposed to Shankar? That stuff changed my life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
NightOfJoy Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Dont worry, you're normal. They bore me to tears. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I was married to a Beatle-neutral (as I call them). Should have been a tip-off Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mjpuczko Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 uh oh, i think my wife is a beatle-neutral. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
brianjeremy Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It was always Beatles vs. Stones ideal in my house growing up. Â My older brother is 16 years my senior and I followed his example, being that the Stones were the best band of all-time and the Beatles were a "faggy" band in his opinion. My brother, a great example of a role model, huh? When I was a boy, I probably could quote you chapter and verse of the Stones. Â I never liked the Beatles, much less listened to them, but as a teenager but my cousin was a mega fan and exposed me to them often. I liked the later albums (Sgt. Peppers and on)and still like them more than the earlier stuff. It wasn't until college when I really started to listen to them. I guess the exposure in the more academic environment helped...tons of the guys I knew in college would sit around listening to the Beatles 'til all hours of the morning. I really connected with the White Album and Sgt. Peppers. Â Now, I listen to the Beatles more than the Stones. However, my wife is really into the Stones and I suppose she likes them better than the Beatles...so I guess we hear them about even in the house. I personally just go for the Beatles more than the Stones these days and she goes for the Stones. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 I knew you'd say The Kinks, and they're the one band who I think gave the Fabs a run for their money, but I also don't think they ever topped them. The Who, though? Wow. I mean, they were a great band and all, but...I think the Who deserve to be put right up there with the Beatles. And I think Townshend at his most ambitious is near equal to any of the Beatles at their most ambitious. All of the Who records up to Moon's death are great, and contain a wonderful balance between bold concepts, and an obvious pop sensibility. I think some of Townshends synthesizer experiments deserve to be lauded as much as some of the Beatles studio experiments. And I prefer Daltrey as a vocalist over any of the Beatles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It's ok to not like The Beatles (even though I think you need your head examined), but to say they are overrated is pretty ridiculous. If you ask most people the first band they followed as kids, it's always The Beatles. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 Between the Beatles and Stones, the Beatles definitely win on total career quality, but that run of Stones albums from Beggars Banquet to Exile On Main St. can't be touched, by the Beatles or anyone. The Stones probably should have quit after that. Yeah, they put out a couple of great albums later on, but if they'd packed it in after Exile they would likely now rival the Beatles in status. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It's ok to not like The Beatles (even though I think you need your head examined), but to say they are overrated is pretty ridiculous. If you ask most people the first band they followed as kids, it's always The Beatles.I think the fact that there are at least half-serious yes responses to the "am I crazy for not liking the Beatles?" question means they are a tad overrated. It's plenty possible for someone to not like the Beatles. Because, after all, they are just a band. And no band appeals to every human alive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 If you ask most people the first band they followed as kids, it's always The Beatles. Or Kiss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 And I prefer Daltrey as a vocalist over any of the Beatles.It's the running-in-place and microphone twirls, isn't it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 It's the running-in-place and microphone twirls, isn't it...Well, the man is a wonderful showman. I certainly enjoy that. But I think that, in his prime, he had the best voice in rock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.