Round Two: Bob Dylan vs Metallica

[Bobby DIGital]

Metallica......just.

 

[miccle]

please stop this poll now while the master Bob Dylan is winning!

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Metallica. First four albums were superb!

And the best live show I've ever seen. They can blow any 20 year olds off the stage with their show.

What he said. Dylan is a master songwriter but Metallica are just more to my taste.

 

[Trollhammaren]

And it looks like Metallica have taken the lead

 

[salivor]

Bob Dylan 19 votes, Metallica 22 votes.
The Music Forum is officially a laughing stock.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Bob Dylan 19 votes, Metallica 22 votes.
The Music Forum is officially a laughing stock.

Care to explain exactly why? At least it's close. Two legendary artists, and unfortunately there has to be a loser.

 

[salivor]

Care to explain exactly why? At least it's close. Two legendary artists, and unfortunately there has to be a loser.

You've even admitted yourself that Bob Dylan is a master musician, even the most fanatical Metallica fan would have to admit that Metallica don't exactly fit into the master musicians category.

Just look at the rubbish they release these days, Bob Dylan has had a longer, more consistant and more successful career and has had more influence than Metallica could hope to have in a lifetime of playing.

 

[Anonymous]

Bob Dylan is an artist who has influenced many who have come since.

Metallica are the same, they more or less re-invented the genre of heavy metal, after Black Sabbath lay down the foundations in the early seventies.

To say that Bob Dylan has been more successful is very open to interpretation. Certainly he is more critically acclaimed - although Metallica are nonetheless well received by critics - but who has sold more albums? Metallica by a long way.

 

[salivor]

Bob Dylan is an artist who has influenced many who have come since.

Metallica are the same, they more or less re-invented the genre of heavy metal, after Black Sabbath lay down the foundations in the early seventies.

But look at the quality of those they have influenced. Bob Dylan not only changed The Beatles music forever and for the better by introducing them to Marajuana but they also readily admit they were influenced by his music itself. If the bands of the 90's grew up listening to and were influenced by Metallica then thats more a blight on their record.

To say that Bob Dylan has been more successful is very open to interpretation. Certainly he is more critically acclaimed - although Metallica are nonetheless well received by critics - but who has sold more albums? Metallica by a long way.

Records sold is never a great measure as the Spice Girls have probably sold more records than a hell of a lot of artists in musics history and I don't think I'll get any arguement in saying they're complete and utter trash.

 

[Anonymous]

Records sold is never a great measure as the Spice Girls have probably sold more records than a hell of a lot of artists in musics history and I don't think I'll get any arguement in saying they're complete and utter trash.

You were the one who brought success into the picture. The Spice Girls may well be trash, but they've also been extremely successful.

Its impossible to deny - Bob Dylan writes exceptional songs. But how relevant is he in this modern day? Not very.

Its all good and well to say he influences such and such, and changed the face of music forever. So did Beethoven. So did Mozart. So did Django Reinhart. But none of them are relevant to people today. And that's why Metallica will win this poll, and rightly so. Because 20 years after they kicked things off, their music remains relevant to the people who are voting.

 

[salivor]

You were the one who brought success into the picture. The Spice Girls may well be trash, but they've also been extremely successful.

Yes I brought success into it, success isn't solely record sales, there are many different facets to success and overall most would agree that Bob Dylan has been much more successful.

Its impossible to deny - Bob Dylan writes exceptional songs. But how relevant is he in this modern day? Not very.

Its all good and well to say he influences such and such, and changed the face of music forever. So did Beethoven. So did Mozart. So did Django Reinhart. But none of them are relevant to people today. And that's why Metallica will win this poll, and rightly so. Because 20 years after they kicked things off, their music remains relevant to the people who are voting.

Bob Dylan is very relevant even 40 years later. Yes a lot of his songs in the 60's and 70's dealt with the great change that was going on at the time but just take IMO his best album Blood on the tracks. The album dealt with his crumbling marriage and issues that songwriters are still writing about today. My generation is the 90's (cringe) and if I can relate to Bob Dylan then I think that suggests his music is still very relevant.

Bob Dylan's music is timeless.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes I brought success into it, success isn't solely record sales, there are many different facets to success and overall most would agree that Bob Dylan has been much more successful.

Enlighten me. What are the other facets that push Bob Dylan into being a more successful musician?

Bob Dylan is very relevant even 40 years later. Yes a lot of his songs in the 60's and 70's dealt with the great change that was going on at the time but just take IMO his best album Blood on the tracks. The album dealt with his crumbling marriage and issues that songwriters are still writing about today. My generation is the 90's (cringe) and if I can relate to Bob Dylan then I think that suggests his music is still very relevant.

Some of the themes are relevant - sure. But its not like he's the first artist to touch the theme of relationships falling apart and he certainly won't be the last.

When I say Bob Dylan is irrelevant today, I'm talking about the music itself. How many people - most importantly young people - are listening to Bob Dylan today? Nowhere near as many as Metallica. Bob Dylan is a legend of rock and roll, but its time for him to step aside and let one of the modern greats thunder on through to the next round.

 

[salivor]

Enlighten me. What are the other facets that push Bob Dylan into being a more successful musician?

Other facets of success? Longevity, critical acclaim, influence, creativeness and just raw talent.

Some of the themes are relevant - sure. But its not like he's the first artist to touch the theme of relationships falling apart and he certainly won't be the last.

When I say Bob Dylan is irrelevant today, I'm talking about the music itself. How many people - most importantly young people - are listening to Bob Dylan today? Nowhere near as many as Metallica. Bob Dylan is a legend of rock and roll, but its time for him to step aside and let one of the modern greats thunder on through to the next round.

Does anyone really take young peoples tastes seriously? Young people today are listening to the likes of Slipknot, Blink 182, Britany Spears etc and these polls are quickly turning into a joke like many of the radio greatest lists that are churned out these days that include artists like Eminem and Blink 182 who just aren't of being mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dylan, The Beatles, The Stones, Elvis, Led Zep etc.

This is not about who is currently the most popular currently or you might as well just post the current top 40 chart and be done with it. This is about weighing up all the factors and deciding who is the better artist. Dylan would be among the top 5 or so musical acts of all time, Metallica would be lucky to be in the top 20.

 

[Anonymous]

Longevity, critical acclaim, influence, creativeness and just raw talent.

The last three are very subjective. One could easily argue Metallica's talent, creativity and influence. You seem to be claiming that Metallica are talentless hacks - from a technical point of view they are actually very refined.

Does anyone really take young peoples tastes seriously?

Of course, because young people are ultimately the ones who purchase the most music and determine which artists go down in history as an all time great as opposed to a mere footnote for the time period. 30 years ago, young people defined Led Zeppelin to be one of the greatest bands ever. 15 years ago, young people defined Metallica to be one of the greats. 10 years ago, it was Nirvana, etc etc etc.

This is not about who is currently the most popular currently or you might as well just post the current top 40 chart and be done with it. This is about weighing up all the factors and deciding who is the better artist.

And every person's opinion of who is a better artist is based on opinion. There is no cut and dried formula that says artist A is better than artist B. You think Bob Dylan is better than Metallica - unfortunately for you, the majority of others don't agree with you.

Just so you know, I'm a child of the 90's too. And yet I appreciate music from older generations - I'd rate Led Zeppelin, Bob Marley, the Stones and others higher than Metallica. However I personally prefer Metallica to Dylan and that's why they got my vote.

 

[Jonotallica]

This is not about who is currently the most popular currently or you might as well just post the current top 40 chart and be done with it. This is about weighing up all the factors and deciding who is the better artist.

And every person's opinion of who is a better artist is based on opinion. There is no cut and dried formula that says artist A is better than artist B. You think Bob Dylan is better than Metallica - unfortunately for you, the majority of others don't agree with you.

Exactly. But even if the majority of people did agree with you salivor, what would it mean exactly? That more people on this forum think Dylan is the better artist, as opposed to Metallica? So what.

There is no music olympics, there is no music competition with premiership points and a grand final at the end. It doesn't matter what other people think, all that matters is whether or not you (the listener) have a connection with the music or not. There is no way to guage whether or not a band is better then another. Which is why there will never be ONE band that is known as the best ever. Some people say The Beatles. Some people say Zep, some people say Queen and some say The Stones. I can't say to you that you are wrong for thinking Dylan is better then Metallica, because it's like saying you are wrong for not liking XXXX beer as much as I do. It's preference.

About the only way you can statistically classify a band as being better then another, is if you compare record sales or concert attendances. And I think we'd all agree that with the pop industry today, record sales have nothing to do with how good the music of a band is..

I also want to point out that I don't like this topic because it's comparing different genres and that's not fair (to Dylan in this case) because no matter how good he is, his genre is so outdated that young people can't relate the same way that they can with Metallica. I like (early) Metallica because of the combinations of melodic interludes, with speed and power riffage. I can sit down on guitar, and play a Dylan song, then sit down and play a Metallica song and you'll be able to see which one I enjoy more. I have no problems acknowledging that Dylan is maybe the best songwriter ever, but he doesn't appeal to me the same way Metallica does. So that's why I voted Metallica. If I was born 20 years earlier I'd be willing to bet that it would be a completely different story. But I can't see how this makes my vote a laughing stock.

 

[salivor]

The last three are very subjective. One could easily argue Metallica's talent, creativity and influence. You seem to be claiming that Metallica are talentless hacks - from a technical point of view they are actually very refined.

You could argue musical talent and creativity but as for lyrical talent and creativity, Dylan wins hands down. Dylan influenced some of the greatest musicians of all time.
I don't think Metallica are a bunch of hacks but they couldn't hold a candle to Dylan. Even most Metallica fans will tell you they're a shadow of their former self while Dylan has stood the test of time.

Of course, because young people are ultimately the ones who purchase the most music and determine which artists go down in history as an all time great as opposed to a mere footnote for the time period. 30 years ago, young people defined Led Zeppelin to be one of the greatest bands ever. 15 years ago, young people defined Metallica to be one of the greats. 10 years ago, it was Nirvana, etc etc etc.

The difference is that Led Zeps music has lasted the test of time. In 100 years we'll still be talking about the influence that the likes of Dylan and The Beatles etc had on music, most of the trash of the last decade or so will be remembered as nothing more than a flash in the pan. Theres a difference between artists that are decades ahead of themselves and artists that are just following in others footsteps.

And every person's opinion of who is a better artist is based on opinion. There is no cut and dried formula that says artist A is better than artist B. You think Bob Dylan is better than Metallica - unfortunately for you, the majority of others don't agree with you.

Just so you know, I'm a child of the 90's too. And yet I appreciate music from older generations - I'd rate Led Zeppelin, Bob Marley, the Stones and others higher than Metallica. However I personally prefer Metallica to Dylan and that's why they got my vote.

I disagree. I enjoy listening to RAGE more than I do Dylan but if the two come up in a poll I won't be voting for RAGE because Dylan has more talent in the tip of his pinky than the whole of RAGE combined. It's called common sense.

As for the majority being against me. I've already told you that this poll officially makes the music forum a laughing stock so I don't respect their opinions anyway ;-) :lol: .

 

[salivor]

Jonotallica - I don't know why you people just can't except that I am so so so right and you are just so so so wrong ;-) .

I do disagree on one thing though:

Which is why there will never be ONE band that is known as the best ever

Elvis = Best solo artist ever
The Beatles = Best band ever

 

[Trollhammaren]

But if you're going to go by the whole influencial hypothesis then Elvis would be influenced by many blues artists etc. Same with Led Zep and all that.
This is such a subjective matter and I don't see why you're getting your knickers in such a twist. Face it, today, more people prefer Metallica who have also kicked on for over 20 years and are still going. I don't like their new releases any where near as much as the early material but at least they had the guts to change and evolve. You could say it was 'selling out' but the 2 Load albums' sales where no where near as high as Master of Puppets, I just believe it was something they wanted to do, because people CHANGE! Hence, their music should also. I applaud them for that. In 100 years people will still hold Metallica in high regard which will be quite significant from a such a niche genre as thrash metal.

 

[miccle]

but who has sold more albums? Metallica by a long way.

Doesn't mean anything when you are talking about being a quality artist. A one-hit wonder fad band could release 2 or 3 cd's and sell hundreds of millions, but then be forgotten.

Metallica have sold a lot, but Dylan has produced a lot. Check out the amount of songs he wrote, recorded and released:

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/