|
Dylan was simply prolific. He churned out great songs for himself and others, each one of them with
some merit, many were classics. He also had great wit in his lyrics. The man is worthy of the
title Legend.
Just for the record I think Jonny Cash was also good but not quite in the same league. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I don’t think King is an applicable term in this arena. Dylan is a master of his craft no doubt
but there many ways to look at this. For example in my opinion John Prine and Leonard Cohen are
better poets, Johnny Cash was more emotive, Arlo Guthrie is a more personable performer, and Ry
Cooder is a better musician. I’m not impugning a great talent but to claim unquestioned rulership
in this is a rather narrow view in my opinion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'd much rather have a Guthrie. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Johnny Cash is better, but they're not really the same type of artist. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Just because you play with an acoustic guitar doesn't make you a folk or country singer. Also
there's no need to rubbish Johnny Cash just to praise Bob Dylan. I'd say Cash was, if anything, a
slightly greater talent. Dylan burned bright in his youth then burned out. Johnny Cash kept getting
better. Listen to a Johnny Cash song like "The Mercy Seat" or his cover version of U2's One. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
06 Sep 2008 09:41
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
