Oh I'm certain he'd say Dylan, but he's also a massive Neil fan.

Old acid heads unite- Dylan. In a runaway.

I always remember the line of some book I read where they describe him onstage after the release of Bringing it All Back Home - "He WAS Acid"

That may or may not have had a massive influence on my life.

Yeah I would like, because it would be a exercise in futility. Every example you could give I could provide evidence to the contrary where Dylan matches or betters him in every way.

I'm not even really trying to take a strong stance for either but to label one heads and shoulders above the other and CERTAINLY to label Neil above Dylan would only be an exercise in personal preference/nostalgia.

Right, Beatles or Stones. Air or food. The choice is mostly odious and unnecessary, but it’s a provisional conversation I have with my partner periodically… usually around, “how can anyone be better than Neil?” Especially as Neil gets older the choice and distinction becomes more reasonable. Neil’s unforeseen “growth” in old age has been aligned with the “hippie dream will never die”, while Bob’s “continued production” has been expanded ways of being “not there.” Native wisdom vs. the artifice of eternity.

Neil is god in our house, and all the many Neil’s through the years have had a profound impact on me. We do the Bridge School like church.
Either sailing mother’s nature’s silver seed, or out on the mainline, Neil has a raw integrity and genius naiveté that powers him like no other. By way of another stoopit comparison, think of a Trey guitar solo, all neat and smugly satisfied, and think of Neil shredding, guitar roaring hungry for an answer, or acoustic blue collar dignity. No one has a hunger as passionate as Neil. Rocking my world free.

But Dylan is important, is every sense of that word. Culturally, symbolically, poetically, politically, personally, historically, prophetically…. Important. Dylan is literally essential. And Dylan, although he’s uneven, is incapable of making the monumentally dumb choices that Neil will make.

Neil is Walt Whitman, and Dylan is T.S. Eliot. Neil is the troubadour, Dylan is the prophet.

My head chooses Dylan.

My heart chooses Neil.

In this poll I clicked Dylan, because that is the right answer, of course. There's really no choice in any critical sense. But as I write here I’ll break the tie I’ve made for myself and go with DumpJack and choose Neil. It’s Neil. In my own old age, I’d rather fall in love than explore the nature of reality.

And speaking of questioning reality, while it’s true that for decades I sought through prayer and medication a way to the Godhead, and there’s very little in the psychotropic menu I haven’t ingested, I’ll turn down the role of the Tripper from the Sixties, thank you. My drug addictions were eventually a bit more urban than bucolic. Macarthur Park at 5:00a.m. with Crips and crack, not peace and love and purple granny glasses. Guns and suicide attempts, blood in my hair, not flowers. Tonight’s the Night, indeed.

beautifully written

The reader's digest version is they both do whatever they want but Neil is crankier.

And drugs mess you up.

harry, the voice of reason.

Dylan

Harry

harry, I just put on Sleeps with Angels for you. Thanks for the thoughts.

harry, FTW

you don't really endear me to have a conversation with you, but i'll put together my thoughts. I'll preface taht i didn't pick a favorite. I love them both, and saying one is better than the other is indeed silly. But i think when it comes to their respective instruments that Neil does indeed have him beat. The whole package is a whole other story, but that isn't what i was saying.

Harmonica - Dylan gets the job done, and often pulled out a gem but more often than not just seemed like he was blowing. Too often he physically hurts the ears. Neil plays precise and beautiful melody. I'll give Dylan a nod in the last decade or so where Dylan can finally play the damn thing like the seasoned pro he is and Neil is treading water (beautiful treading, but not breaking any new ground for himself.)

Piano - i won't argue this one too much because i don't really know the piano, and when i saw Bob play piano i couldn't really hear the thing. It was as if it was there as a prop. Most of the great Dylan piano parts are played by someone else, but i don't know that he couldn't play them himself.

Guitar -Bob can obviously play, but Neil might be my favorite guitar player. I don't have much more of an argument than that.

i own barely a couple of discs worth of dylan

im currently downloading 80s neil young from this site

http://elblogdearchi.blogspot.com/searc ... il%20Young

to fill the gaps i have

my choice is easy

Dylan's songs were always better performed by other people

dylan's songs performed by other people are good because they highlight the brilliance of the tunes. however, they also demonstrate just how brilliant Dylan is as a performer as well cuz they almost always sound hollow and a pale shadow of the man himself.

np: Neil Young & Crazy Horse - Weld

I forgot that this has a cover of Blowin in the Wind on, coincidentally

I voted Dylan, but now wish I'd voted Neil. I should have abstained, as I'd initially intended. But damn it all, I wanted to know who was winning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnc4-yqB520

dylan has nothing that lives up to this side of neil

haha

He certainly could never live up to that haircut.

youre australian, your arguments are automatically invalidated

I'm gonna disagree with this point, to a certain extent. I think the Byrds, the Band, Hendrix, fuck even Jason & the Scorchers have all covered Dylan better than Dylan.

I hate the Byrds covering Dylan.

oh, good call. i'm going to have to put that record on tonight.

maybe Hendrix and that was just one song. saying The Byrds do Dylan songs better than Dylan is like saying that Matthew Sweet's cover of Cinnamon Girl is better than Neil Young's

Maybe, but I'd sooner kill myself than hear Dylan sing 'Mr Tambourine Man' again.