A poll just for the senator.

Thanks, dude. Hard to choose really, because they are all in the pantheon, but forced to choose one forever and ever amen, I'd go with The Stones.

I was thinking Stones, but Chase gave me 100 to 1 odds that you would pick Faux Hawk. So it looks like I'm out a buck.

I voted Rolling Stones.

The attitude really sums it up. It's rebellious and dirty and most importantly, it feels like rock and roll.

I'm just now really starting to slowly peel into Dylan more and more, but he's still in third for me. I appreciate his work more and more, but it's hard to get all amped up for some Dylan. You know, in the "It's Friday night, I'm gonna grab some beer before we go out, let's crank some Bob." He has his place for me, but right now that place is pretty low-key.

My favorite thing about Springsteen is that he and the E Street Band really sound like they enjoy what they do. His habit of nicknaming his characters tends to drag though, and sometimes his stories get a little silly. Oh, and Born In The USA hurts my ears.

I actually voted Faux Hawk, though. So, someone wins something. YAY!

I voted Dylan but I defintley see where you're going with the Friday night thing.

that's not really votable to me. all are great and totally different.

This thread needs marshmallows.

I got really into Dylan right around the time I got really into acid, and I do not think either would ever have been as good without the other.

Born in the USA is awesome for its own reasons, #1 being that all the songs are majorly depressing and about how middle age sucks and living in America in the Reagan years is shite, but the production is some 80s synth pop guitar circus. I fucking love it, but everyone knows I'ma sucker for a cheap hook.

Actually, it's not so much the songs, as the actual sound of the recording. It screams 1984. Christ, the drums sound so bright and shrill it's painful.

I like that Springsteen at his best makes rock n roll the fifth gospel and it's awesome power can change your life. Sometimes he just seems preachy. Overall he's a bad ass.

Like the 80's were kind to any of the aforementioned.

Very true, Phil.

Really hard to choose. I chose Dylan because he seems the most important and I listen to him the most. However, the Stones have been sneaking into my stereo more and more. So has Bruce and I'd probably see him live before I'd seen any of the others.

i am the only one to vote for springsteen.

I like Springsteen but I don't really understand throwing him in the same league.

This is kind of like choosing between food, water and a foot massage. I might choose the foot massage every now and then but I'm not going to last too long without my food and water, and while you might be able to survive longer with one rather than the other, you're pretty f'ed if you don't have both.

if it came down to having to pick just two albums i'd pick springsteen over Dylan in a heartbeat.

I voted for the Stones. I'm not a massive fan of their albums but the run of singles they put out at their peak was extraordinary.

Dylan, despite what I said yesterday about preferring other artists (not every cover mind you, but the 30th Anniversay tribute concert was my intro to a lot of his work)

Yeah, but then, I could never really get into the sound of his full-band albums.

Tough choice between Stones and Dylan, but I voted Stones. They're more fun.

I must say that out of thsoe choices, Dylan has had the most to offer me. And that ain't much.

I picked Springsteen because I own all of his albums and own none of The Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan.

Dylan. I don't like enough of the other choices' songs to vote for them. I know they are huge bands with a huge influence but most of their stuff just doesn't do it for me. I love Bob Dylan though.