Originally posted by: Feldenak
Originally posted by: Dubb
wow. I think alot of you need to get your heads checked.
first, dylan is god. Never forget this. THERE HAS BEEN NO DYLAN COVER THAT BESTED THE ORIGINAL. there have been some great covers, but...
Dylan is a much better songwriter than a singer.
The man can write a song like nobody's business but he should let other people perform those songs.
if you mean that dylan shouldn't perform his own songs, then NO, NO, NO. I now hate you for life.
I don't have any problems with most of the dylan covers...hell, I love hendrix's watchtower, neil's tom thumb was great. there's tons of them. but I still like the bob versions much better.
I've had this argument with alot of people. it's one of the bigger music nerd debates.
I say there's a subtle honesty in his voice, it's imperfect in the tradional sense, but honest. there's a back & forth between his voice & the music (usually his guitar) & the interplay between them. These qualities are almost universally missing from the covers. the byrds lost it in slicked up playing and singing, somewhere along the line, in trying to make it sound perfect, the song lost it's heart. Hendrix just wanted to rock out - which is fine, amazing in jimi's case, but still missing something. GNR made Knockin' a song about spectecle, which again is perfectly valid and entertaining (to a point, axel can kiss my ass for being such a whiny bitch at the last detroit show), but way short of the original.
let me try and put this in a way that ATers can understand. let's say you know an incredibly hot girl, who is smart and witty, completely into you, that you connect with on so many levels it's not even funny. And let's say she has an identical twin sister, who's also unbearably hot, but not quite as smart or witty, and she spends way more time on her appearence than her sister does. And, your interactions with said sister are polite and pleasant enough, but slightly awkward.
which one do you ask out?