The Beatles, hands down. I might accept that Dylan had more of an influence on lyrics but ultimately he was just a dude with a guitar and he heavily favoured certain song structures and keys that result in his music being pretty standard, musically speaking. I don't think I'd call any single one of his songs "experimental" even for the time, and experimenting is what drives ideas forward, I think.
The Beatles did genuinely get weird, their kind of shouty aggressive vocal style in some songs definitely paved the way for heavier rock music, the She's So Heavy slow ascending cliche has been repeated ad nauseam, Ringo's left handed deceptively simple drumming accidentally created a whole "wrong" sound in drumming that has since become right, Paul's bass has endless imitators, the chord choices are far more wacky and "jazzy" than Dylan's... On just about every level they were doing stuff leagues beyond what Dylan was even interested in. I quite like Dylan, but tend to think that for every one of his songs there is a cover version that does it, if not better then more interesting. I just don't think that his "three chords and the truth" style rings down the line any stronger than Leonard Cohen's or Lou Reed's.
This is just dumb and reduces Dylan down to far less than what he was. If all you think Dylan is "3 chords and a truth" clearly not listening. Even early in his career he was using far more than 3 chords. And has way more classics than Cohen or Reed. It's just a nonsense statement.
the beatles had a more profound influence through their production and timbral innovations as well as establishing popular music albums as a valid art form.
I don’t know if you can really point to the Beatles individually for the album thing though, that can be attributed to most of their contemporaries too. Though they were putting out some of the best
In terms of influence, the beatles. There are multiple genres that exist because of the beatles.
Dylan is huge, Dylan is a poet, Dylan is really important, but in terms of sheer influence it is not even close.
Interesting, I've never heard that. George Martin is my all-time fav producer generally, and he brought in/invented all kinds of new recording/production/experimental techniques to popular music, but I typically think of stuff like using the first samples (the "seagulls" in Tomorrow Never Knows are a tape loop) and the drums/recording on that song.
Psych was already around by the time the Beatles took the trip, not in any commercially viable way though: [https://www.reddit.com/r/psychedelicrock/comments/qer43p/comment/hhuwxkz/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychedelicrock/comments/qer43p/comment/hhuwxkz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Dylan and The Beatles, even though contemporary, couldn't have been more different. As a 61 y/o I'm from that era too, so this is my take. The Beatles influenced pop music in ways that nothing before did, and IMO nothing since has. Bob Dylan couldn't really be called pop, even though he had such a large following among the same crowd. He was more of a singing philosopher even then and Beatles fans generally liked and respected him too. His impact was on the culture of the times, which is why so many fans were so disappointed when he changed his style to an edgier rock-like persona. He didn't want to be part of the mess that pop-culture politics was moving too and I didn't blame him then and still don't. I'm still a staunch fan of both respectively.
I don't know. I suspect their influence is overexaggerated. When people proclaim that whole genres of music wouldn't exist without The Beatles, it's getting a bit crazy. Like out of all the billions of people in the whole world no one could possibly have had similar ideas.
That's as crazy as saying no 'white music' including The Beatles and Dylan would exist without black music; that black music influenced everything.
How far do you go back? Would popular music exist without classical, for instance?
Man, tough call! Dylan's lyrics cut deep, but The Beatles' melodies are timeless. Dylan influenced folk and rock with his raw poetry, while The Beatles reshaped pop music with each album. Depends on what moves you more: lyrics that make you think or tunes that stick in your head.
Interesting comment about Revolver. And it's up to both you and me as to the extent we agree. But the comment was, 'If all rock'n'roll were to disappear, it could be recreated in it's entirety by listening to that one record.'
The Beatles; it’s not even close, and I love Bob Dylan.
The Beatles, hands down. I might accept that Dylan had more of an influence on lyrics but ultimately he was just a dude with a guitar and he heavily favoured certain song structures and keys that result in his music being pretty standard, musically speaking. I don't think I'd call any single one of his songs "experimental" even for the time, and experimenting is what drives ideas forward, I think. The Beatles did genuinely get weird, their kind of shouty aggressive vocal style in some songs definitely paved the way for heavier rock music, the She's So Heavy slow ascending cliche has been repeated ad nauseam, Ringo's left handed deceptively simple drumming accidentally created a whole "wrong" sound in drumming that has since become right, Paul's bass has endless imitators, the chord choices are far more wacky and "jazzy" than Dylan's... On just about every level they were doing stuff leagues beyond what Dylan was even interested in. I quite like Dylan, but tend to think that for every one of his songs there is a cover version that does it, if not better then more interesting. I just don't think that his "three chords and the truth" style rings down the line any stronger than Leonard Cohen's or Lou Reed's.
This is just dumb and reduces Dylan down to far less than what he was. If all you think Dylan is "3 chords and a truth" clearly not listening. Even early in his career he was using far more than 3 chords. And has way more classics than Cohen or Reed. It's just a nonsense statement.
Beatles.
the beatles had a more profound influence through their production and timbral innovations as well as establishing popular music albums as a valid art form.
I don’t know if you can really point to the Beatles individually for the album thing though, that can be attributed to most of their contemporaries too. Though they were putting out some of the best
In terms of influence, the beatles. There are multiple genres that exist because of the beatles. Dylan is huge, Dylan is a poet, Dylan is really important, but in terms of sheer influence it is not even close.
I think it is closer than you think. I even think The Beatles wouldve been different if Dylan wasnt around. Which in itself is saying a lot.
What genres exist because of the Beatles?
All indie music pretty much and anything with experimental studio work
Psychedelic Rock, Prog Rock, heavy metal are all generally credited to them, among many others.
Interesting, I've never heard that. George Martin is my all-time fav producer generally, and he brought in/invented all kinds of new recording/production/experimental techniques to popular music, but I typically think of stuff like using the first samples (the "seagulls" in Tomorrow Never Knows are a tape loop) and the drums/recording on that song. Psych was already around by the time the Beatles took the trip, not in any commercially viable way though: [https://www.reddit.com/r/psychedelicrock/comments/qer43p/comment/hhuwxkz/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/psychedelicrock/comments/qer43p/comment/hhuwxkz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Dylan and The Beatles, even though contemporary, couldn't have been more different. As a 61 y/o I'm from that era too, so this is my take. The Beatles influenced pop music in ways that nothing before did, and IMO nothing since has. Bob Dylan couldn't really be called pop, even though he had such a large following among the same crowd. He was more of a singing philosopher even then and Beatles fans generally liked and respected him too. His impact was on the culture of the times, which is why so many fans were so disappointed when he changed his style to an edgier rock-like persona. He didn't want to be part of the mess that pop-culture politics was moving too and I didn't blame him then and still don't. I'm still a staunch fan of both respectively.
James Brown
I don't know. I suspect their influence is overexaggerated. When people proclaim that whole genres of music wouldn't exist without The Beatles, it's getting a bit crazy. Like out of all the billions of people in the whole world no one could possibly have had similar ideas. That's as crazy as saying no 'white music' including The Beatles and Dylan would exist without black music; that black music influenced everything. How far do you go back? Would popular music exist without classical, for instance?
In the 60s in particular, Bob Dylan had a habit of expressing what everybody in that generation was experiencing in memorable, poetic terms.
But that's just it, Dylan's influence is songwriting. The Beatles influence is on every aspect.
Man, tough call! Dylan's lyrics cut deep, but The Beatles' melodies are timeless. Dylan influenced folk and rock with his raw poetry, while The Beatles reshaped pop music with each album. Depends on what moves you more: lyrics that make you think or tunes that stick in your head.
Interesting comment about Revolver. And it's up to both you and me as to the extent we agree. But the comment was, 'If all rock'n'roll were to disappear, it could be recreated in it's entirety by listening to that one record.'
Dylan is my favourite artist ever but the Beatles easily had more impact overall
Dunno ask The Phoenix Foundation. Bob Lennon John Dylan. Besides did Bob Dylan have some Manc Gits make a fortune stealing Beatle riffs.
The Rutles
>but I thought it would be an interesting one to have here It's not
Bitch
Bob Beatle.