Blowing In The Wind

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lennon and Mac...well, that is TWO people together. That doesn't even compare to dylan. Dylan started as a folkie, moved into rock n roll, did country, etc...and influenced more artists and writing styles. You wouldn't have such artists as Joni Mitchell.

There isn't really one song that the beatles put out that had the cultural influence of "blowin in the wind" or "the times they are-a-changin"..major anti war and civil rights anthems.

McCartney wrote the majority of songs and lyrics. Lennon would add a line or two and because of the pact they made earlier in their careers, all of their songs would be listed Lennon/McCartney.

Dylan influenced writing styles. The Beatles changed music. Show me a Dylan album that has the effect on the music industry that Sgt. Pepper did. Listen, Dylan is great and I like his music, to a degree, but if we're comparing Dylan to Beatles, there is no comparison.

In regards to Dylan's political statements, that was his thing. The Beatles interjected politics into some of their music, but they had a different musical ambition than Dylan.

Two complete different types of music. However, both are great. IMO, though, The Beatles were just flat out better musically and lyrically.

What you are doing is conflating two things. When you want, you talk about the Beatles changing music..well, that is the BEATLES..that isn't Mac and Lennon..that is FOUR guys.

The award was for best songwriter.

However, if you don't think he changed music as compared to the beatles you are crazy. Dylan's early lyrics incorporated politics, social commentary, philosophy and literary influences, defying existing pop music conventions...you think the beatles coulda wrote what they did without dylan blazing the trail? LOL

Let me quote Harrison on Freewheelin' "We just played it, just wore it out. The content of the song lyrics and just the attitude — it was incredibly original and wonderful."

Rolling Stone had him #2 as the greatest artist..second to the beatles..and once again, the beatles aren't just 2 guys.

THe song "like a rolling stone" changed perceptions about what a pop song could be.

Dylan didn't have one album..his whole career was more significant. YOu think rock guys woulda produced the country rock sound of the 70s without Nashville Skyline?

That period..61 revisited, blonde on blonde, bring it all back home..that trilogy changed changed music. It incorporated everything..folk, blues, rock, country, gospel, british beat, surrealism, dadaism, etc...and made it into a coherent voice.

[BallHawk]

Dylan added nothing musically. His lyrics did have an impact outside of music but when you look at the music of the song it has been done before. Like A Rolling Stone didn't shake up how music was made and produced.

[Zool]

This probably comes down to personal preference and music styles, but the Beatles changed the way songs were structured. That to me is song writing. To me lyrics are almost secondary to everything else going on. Most music up to that point was:
Intro
Verse
Chorus
Verse
Chorus
Bridge
Verse
Chorus
End


That and I've never been much of a Dylan fan. Personally think it sounds like a cat being tortured while he's singing. The music is secondary in his songs and that isnt a mix I like to listen to.

[BallHawk]

I have to disagree with McCartney doing most of the writing. That is just plain false. McCartney was the only one of the four that could really read music and he did several scores for movies, but Lennon pretty much wrote the music that he was lead vocals on and McCartney was the main influence on the songs that he was the lead vocals on.

I phrased that badly. I would agree with what you said about the lead vocals on their respective songs. Lennon produced some absolutely fantastic songs that really shook up music, but if you look at the bulk of the Beatles work McCartney constitutes for the majority of the songs. It's well accepted that Paul was the better musician. Now, whether Lennon was the better songwriter....that's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I think McCartney consistently put out good songs at a better rate than Lennon, but that's just me. It's neck-neck. You don't have the Beatles without Lennon and you don't have them without McCartney. George Harrison needs to get some more credit, too. He was way more talented than the Beatles allowed him to be in the songwriting process. While My Guitar Gently Weeps is a fantastic song. Paul's ego did dwarf George's abilities and that was one of the things that lead to the breakup.

McCartney and his ego now like to take credit for most of the music they wrote, pulling stunts like listing music on his live cd as McCartney withree Lennon, instead of the way it should be, McCartney/Lennon.

Agreed. Paul has become selfish over the years.

Three albums that changed music forever, St. Peppers, White Album, and Abbey Road.

Albums that don't get credit Rubber Soul and Revolver. Revolver is one of my personal favorites

I've never been a fan of Rubber Soul. I never felt it had a lot of depth or substance to it. Revolver is indeed a fantastic album.

Let It Be doesn't get enough credit. Rolling Stone ranked it #86 which is just mind-boggling. The fact that the album could be so good when the band was all but finished is amazing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Dylan added nothing musically. His lyrics did have an impact outside of music but when you look at the music of the song it has been done before. Like A Rolling Stone didn't shake up how music was made and produced.

You are outta your mind. He mixed many genres..that was unheard of.

The beatles...musically? How are they any more important than the Stones, Beach Boys, etc.

Again, you are talking Beatles..for you to continue to conflate Dylan vs. Mac and lennon..and then when it suits you switch to the beatles is disengenous.

[Harlan Huckleby]

conflate...switch...disengenous.

he should be more linear, like Dylan