The Music Forum Paired Artist- Battle Dome-Please read 1st Post for Rules

Cicero

Welcome to the Music Forum "Paired Artist -Battle Dome Thread"

Rules:

1. Every Two days- After 7pm - a new pairing of artists can be proposed. Just post NEW PAIRING...and the two artists/bands you want to battle it out.

2. There's no poll- it's strongest argument wins and you can make your own mind up who wins the argument- but the thread is more about learning facts/new things about bands/artists that you might not have known before, rather than just about "winning".

First Battle lasts till 7pm Wednesday:

Bob Dylan Vs John Lennon- Let the Battle Begin:D

Mars Bar

Should there not be a poll with it or are you just gonna take the vote from each post?

Cicero

For me, it has to be Dylan for the following reasons:

Prolific output of (many quality albums from early 60s onwards
Massive critic of social issues of the time, but let his music & lyrics speak on his behalf
Bucked the trend of the day- when people thought they knew him, he just went off in a totally different direction- i.e. acoustic folk/ to electric blues
Wasn't afraid of what people though of him and would never be "boxed in" to any genre- a self confessed song and dance man

Amazotheamazing

Dylan is so many divisions above Lennon it's not fair to put them in the ring together. It's like taking Katie Taylor and putting her in a ring with Joe Frasier (in his prime). She's great in her division but Frasier would kill her.

Cicero

mars bar wrote: »

Should there not be a poll with it or are you just gonna take the vote from each post?

would see this thread as an ongoing thread- not a once-off-otherwise, we'll have tons of pairings on the music forum- a poll would be difficult to maintain every 3 days and would have to change and a new one set up- to keep the thread fresh, the battles only last a few days- it's "quick and dirty" then move on to the next pairing- I think people can read back over any particular battle and make their own mind up who wins as the battle is over at the times listed above, so you only have a couple of days to get your spake in..:)

Cicero

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Dylan is so many divisions above Lennon it's not fair to put them in the ring together. It's like taking Katie Taylor and putting her in a ring with Joe Frasier (in his prime). She's great in her division but Frasier would kill her.

never said it was fair...;)...but I think it just might be interesting nevertheless - since theres no poll, people will have to fight their way to the top..

CDfm

Lennon had the edge on melody.

Dylan is certainly more literate and philosophical. Dylan cut his teeth in Greenwich Village whereas a young Lennon did so in Hamburg and never lost his interest in rock n'roll.Dylan was a protege of Woodie Guthrie whereas Lennon was more of a Chuck Berry fan. Dylan merged pop and protest music and his early stuff really stands up.

What I like about Lennon is his shallowness and honesty. " Jealous Guy" is a magic song but "Imagine" gets the airplay -which is a pity. "I am the Walrus" has lyrical playfulness that you wouldnt see in Dylan. For me Lennons magic moment has to be his Beatles song "Julia". Simple and direct and personal. Dylan could never be that simple.

Funnily enough though I love electric guitar - I prefered Dylan before he went electric :pac:

Rubik.

I kind of get the feeling even Lennon would have opted for Dylan in this pairing.

Amazotheamazing

CDfm wrote: »

Lennon had the edge on melody.

What I like about Lennon is his shallowness and honesty. " Jealous Guy" is a magic song but "Imagine" gets the airplay -which is a pity. "I am the Walrus" has lyrical playfulness that you wouldnt see in Dylan. For me Lennons magic moment has to be his Beatles song "Julia". Simple and direct and personal. Dylan could never be that simple.

Hmm, Paul was the melodic one in the Beatles, a lot of Lennon's solo stuff is fairly bland musically.

Dylan can be simple, a song like "I'll be your baby tonight" or "Man in Me" shows how well he understands simplicity.

On the second half of the Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, or on Bringing It All Back Home Dylan's 115 Dream (iirc) shows a lyrically playfulness equal to anything Lennon could do, as does a fair bit of Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde. A problem with Dylan is people assume he's hiding some deep meaning when in reality he's just being playful. Even on Love and Theft he's throwing awful jokes into songs (I rang room service, said send up a room).

I suspect Rubik is right, even Lennon would be going for Dylan in this one.

CDfm

Rubik. wrote: »

I kind of get the feeling even Lennon would have opted for Dylan in this pairing.

No chance, Lennon would have called him,Dylan, a country crossover artist :pac:

Amazotheamazing

CDfm wrote: »

No chance, Lennon would have called him,Dylan, a country crossover artist :pac:

I don't know, Lennon was obsessed with Dylan, he thought Fourth Time Round was written about him (to the tune of Norwegian Wood).

Rubik.

CDfm wrote: »

No chance, Lennon would have called him,Dylan, a country crossover artist :pac:

Its funny you should say that because apparently this was written....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nucSvl7VXVM

in response to this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs7p1IGqsgk

which was thought to be a piss take of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3cUejOltsA

CDfm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Hmm, Paul was the melodic one in the Beatles, a lot of Lennon's solo stuff is fairly bland musically.

lennon was off on a bender for most of the early 70's

i would not say bland but rather not sophisticated and Zimmerman never writes about his Mum or his muse with so much candour.

dear prudence is a fairly epic sing

Dylan can be simple, a song like "I'll be your baby tonight"

good choice -about minding a baby -bring that bottle over here

CDfm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

I don't know, Lennon was obsessed with Dylan, he thought Fourth Time Round was written about him (to the tune of Norwegian Wood).

but Dylan considers Liam Clancy to have been one of the best ballad singers ever and whereas I can appreciate his work I aint going to go out and buy him. So too even if Dylan influenced Lennions thinking and he was a fan there is no reason I should agree with him about who I prefer.

thenakedanddead

This is a tough one. On one hand you got someone who is probably the second greatest living song writer (Browne is first, even though his later output makes that questionable) and the other hand you've got a great musician and great character.

In the way that Dylan is unquestionably the better songwriter than Lennon, Lennon avoided some of the Banality manifested in Dylan's character. Though, I suspect that's neither here nor there as we are judging this purely on musical terms.

Lennon songs had a creative streak whereas Dylan didn't, whereas Dylan carried his songs with weight, creating something much more than songs. In lieu, of this, Lennon's compositions seem to be something of the moment.

I'm withdrawing any vote for the time being as i feel that this one requires thought.

Dylan. Lennon. Dylan. Lennon. This one is truly impossible.

CDfm

thenakedanddead wrote: »

(Browne is first,

Jackson Browne ????

thenakedanddead

CDfm wrote: »

Jackson Browne ????

Yeah. Slaughter me if you wish

CDfm

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Yeah. Slaughter me if you wish

Not at all. Someone who thinks the Alice Cooper song "Dead Babies" is pure class has no right to criticize anyones taste but it is a bit country .

Mars Bar

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Browne is first,

Wanna be friends?!

thenakedanddead

mars bar wrote: »

Wanna be friends?!

What's your favourite song?

Mars Bar

thenakedanddead wrote: »

What's your favourite song?

Late For The Sky. It's beautiful.

Anyway, don't wanna take this off topic so...

thenakedanddead

mars bar wrote: »

Late For The Sky. It's beautiful.

Anyway, don't wanna take this off topic so...

Well let me just end this digression by saying I concur.

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

would see this thread as an ongoing thread- not a once-off-otherwise, we'll have tons of pairings on the music forum- a poll would be difficult to maintain every 3 days and would have to change and a new one set up- to keep the thread fresh, the battles only last a few days- it's "quick and dirty" then move on to the next pairing- I think people can read back over any particular battle and make their own mind up who wins as the battle is over at the times listed above, so you only have a couple of days to get your spake in..:)

Wouldn't it be more tense and fun if an official winner is declared?

Cicero

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Wouldn't it be more tense and fun if an official winner is declared?

..if you can think of a way that will please all...please, go for it..:)

Heres a number of short 1 minute clips of an interview with bob on youtube-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZlsP8LHHAs&NR=1

his total rejection & dismissal of the media is legendary- he admits here that he constantly lied to the media when asked questions which is no surprise to anyone....while Dylan totally rejected the media, Lennon courted it and used it to his advantage and personal escapades (bed-in for peace with yoko)- probably one of the first pop/rock stars to do this- years before Bono et al went down that road..

..in other interview clips also at the same link, Dylan (as usual) either can't or won't talk about the motivation or source of his creativity that produced his fine back catalog of the 1960s-again, not allowing the world to gain any insight as to how the songs were formed or what they were based on- Dylan still appears today, as a reluctant hero/voice of the people- Lennon, and the Beatles as a whole, on the other hand- were the original media friendly band- both Lennon and Dylan have used the media in their own way to help create their public persona - one by rejecting it, and one by embracing it-
..wonder if Dylan had treated the media differently and opened up a little more, would that have taken away too much of the mystic ?

thenakedanddead

I think Dylan won that. I'm going on.

Competition 2:

Leonard Cohen Vs Randy Newman


I love Leonard, but, despite a few ear-hurters, the accolade has to go to Randy Newman for the following reasons:

He did something very uncommon in music, which is to present with a very simple style, say alot yet keep it simple. Create a story which could be appreciated both from a passive perspective and be analysed in a political regard. He could diverse his styles, hitting one minute a social problem of sorts and then, with similar authenticity shift to a love song like Marie.

Cicero

Ok....maybe this battle will get people going- take your sides now-

Jimmy Page Vs Jimi Hendrix - who wins?...you decide..

Rubik.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJGK_qU0xHI

Cicero

I'm taking Page's side in this battle: I'll post some words later this weekend...in the meantime.....here's Page...jump to 30sec's into the tape and just sit back and watch a genius at play:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bc9m7nbMC4

Cicero

& I don't care what anyone says.....you know you love it....go on.....click it..play it.....live it:

CDfm

I hate to say it but Cicero is bang on the money here Page has the edge over " excuse me while I kiss this guy".

Hendrix had amazing stagecraft and was good. In 60's London he was doing what a lot of guitarists did. Jeff Beck, Pete Townsend, Eric Clapton were all his contemporaries, Mick Taylor gave the Rolling Stones a new edge -Angie is his.

I will have to go with Jimmy Page on this.

thenakedanddead

I'll stop contaminating this thread in a moment, but instant gratification is a must so do forgive

Battle 4:

Zappa vs The Beatles.

Zappa - More fun, more creative, better songs.

CDfm

I don't know much about Zappa apart from his work with the early Alice Cooper as a producer-which didnt really work.

What were Zappa's high points and is there any popular stuff I might know.

thenakedanddead

Well his primary high point is surely his innovation. Nothing like him came before or has transpired since.

On a non-musical note, interviews with Frank Zappa surpass those with any other musician. Zappa had not only a sharp wit, and a penetrating cynicism, but also acute observation to the world around him.

Anyway, popular songs. I think the most accessible is probably "Montana" ("raising my lonely dental floss"). But check out Dirty Love, my favourite.

Cicero

On the basis that I want to be educated on Frank Zappa, I'm going with the beatles on this one so thenakedanddead can yearn the win and educate us all at the same time..:D

Beatles for the following reasons:

1. Ability to make a complex Melody appear simple
2. Song writing skills
3. Influence on a whole generation - pretty much brought the UK out of the depressing 50s and into a new way of thinking/acting/fashion/popular culture
4. Influence on a myriad of song writers and musicians that came after them right up to today.

OK thenakedandead...hit me with what you've got on Zappa...convince me to buy even one of his albums and I'll give you this win.:p

thenakedanddead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8y0JLPQl94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1S5wiquX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxB-ZePpS7E&feature=related


OK, here's why I think Zappa should get the nod


1. Ability to exceed his generation - Zappa was not a product of the happy hippy movement and he abhorred their values. His songs are much more adventurous.

2. He was not confined to the general song chorus format, nor in thinking in strictly musical terms. "Montana", for example, sounds like a kind of monologue. There's a science to his music.

3. Zappa was not afraid of his opinion, even when he went against the tide. For example (1968), or thereabouts, he released an album with the mothers called "We're only in it for the money". The cover was a parody of the Beatles sgt pepper.

4. The best reason, perhaps, for giving Zappa this accolade, is his sheer dedication to his work. Throughout his lifetime, he produced 80 + albums, some of which were comprised of classical music.

Cicero

OK..he had a prolific output of albums- so did Cliff Richard- not sure that's gonna earn you points in this battle- quantity most certainly doesn't equal quality.

..I've just sped read wiki on Zappa & the mothers of invention. I agree, he does appear different -avant guarde- rebellious against even the "rebellious" popular culture of the time- hell, Stravinsky is one of his influences- so certainly someone of interest that merits a footnote in R&R history- but how big a footnote? how influential was he really?- what did he do to revolutionize music?--- - would like to know before awarding you points for that one.

Don't think the Beatles cared too much about opinion either though or going against the tide so no points there IMO.

Dedication to work is what all serious musicians do-like I said, album proliferation doesn't equal quality- had he stayed in the studio a bit more at the editing desk, would he have had fewer, but better albums?

Can you give me a top 3 albums that, in your opinion really define Zappa or Zappa and the mothers of invention- that might help persuade me.

The Beatles certainly had the White Album & Srg. Pepper as defining moments in music history- what does Zappa have of this quality?

thenakedanddead

OK, Ok, maybe Zappa wasn't as influential as the Beatles in the limited, pedantic sense of the word. But he presented much more opportunities.

The Beatles were great too, and Revolver is one of my favourite albums of all time. But any praise toward "The White Album" is strictly unwarranted as that is a crock of shite

Cicero

Now you're just lookin for a fight!!!
To hell with my education on Zappa- if you want eclectic, then look no further than The White Album- yes, there are "b" sides, jam sessions and other such works that may have been better left out - left out, that is, if the album were to be perceived as a "mainstream" "commercially appealing" record- but you have just said that experimentation is Zappa's strong point- but yet you don't allow the Beatles to have the skill of experimentation as a string to their bow? To boot, it also gain number 10 place in Rolling Stones top 500 influential albums of all time- it is also the 10th best selling album of all time in the US. While commercial sales doesn't necessarily mean a good album, I think that your above statement is at the very least, ill -informed.

thenakedanddead

I meant experimentation with good results. And I'm not saying for a moment that it always worked in Zappa's favour. Freak out, Zappas debut, is a very experimental album, yet some of the songs are childish and awful.

Oh and BTW, I am most definitely not prohibiting The Beatles for experimenting. I mentioned that Revolver is one of my favourite albums. How more psychedelic and out-there is it possible to get? But The White Album is definitely a case of experimentation turned into pretension. Your argument about commercialism, while I agree in some respects is indicative of a "style over substance" attitude. Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. In a non pseudo-intellectual manner, please convince me, providing you think so, that that song is a work of genius. Sorry if I came across as abrupt.

Cicero

It's all part of the battle....you weren't abrupt...you gave me gilt edged reason to slam your argument and I went for it...I'm just in total battle mode now- attack "my" albums and I'll retaliate..:D

yea yea..number 9...number 9..point taken.. but there are too many other good songs on that album for me to even get into what is really still a non-argument - the White Album was experimental, it was successful, it was influential - I still haven't learnt anything about Zappa so far, except that he made a first album that had some childish and awful songs on it- is that what you are putting forward as an argument for Zappa? Already I can see Zappa fans all over the world cringing with sheer desperation and as we speak, are registering with boards.ie to right this perceived wrong..or are they?:p

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

It's all part of the battle....you weren't abrupt...you gave me gilt edged reason to slam your argument and I went for it...I'm just in total battle mode now- attack "my" albums and I'll retaliate..:D

yea yea..number 9...number 9..point taken.. but there are too many other good songs on that album for me to even get into what is really still a non-argument - the White Album was experimental, it was successful, it was influential - I still haven't learnt anything about Zappa so far, except that he made a first album that had some childish and awful songs on it- is that what you are putting forward as an argument for Zappa? Already I can see Zappa fans all over the world cringing with sheer desperation and as we speak, are registering with boards.ie to right this perceived wrong..or are they?:p

I'm not revoking my childish comment for a second, buts that a fault. All musicians have had them. To cite an example

"The futures coming and it's rushing in"

And other such disastrous attempts at poetry from his paulness. "Apostrophe" (seeing you asked) stands out to me as a significant Zappa album, as by this point, he had established himself as an artist.

Oh and yes. Granted, their are some fantastic songs on the white album.

Cicero

It was his 18th album release and from what the internet says, his most successful in the US, going gold- have listened to a number of tracks so far- bit Bowiesque - nothing earth shattering though- but good nevertheless.

But does this not sum-up Zappa- so flawed, so many albums to wade through in order to find the peaks of excellence that really, he can't be taken as a serious contender against the Beatles (of which you have pitched him against)- yes he's experimental, different, non mainstream- but I don't think he did himself favours by focusing on musical output over deep impact- he's a musician to be respected, probably the greatest experimental musician of his time- but it's like he's a scientist, continually getting flawed results and only occasionally finding something new that's of use to anyone, or indeed, that interests anyone.

thenakedanddead

^ Your argument, while it does raise some good points, seems to evoke that it's all about consistency. Some of the best musicians (IMHO) are notoriously inconsistent. Take Jackson Browne for example. I've already claimed that I hate some of his later work, but that does not distil weight from things like "Song for adam", "Late for the sky" or "The pretender". Likewise, Zappa had "peaches en regalia", which is very style over substance-ish, but that does not disqualify his good stuff.

Cicero

you mention Browne and his "later work"- but that is implying that he has a body of work up to some point in time, that you respect- a body of work- defined by a number of albums that were significantly influential/likable/could survive being played as an album without lifting the record needle every couple of songs to avoid the drivel- I would rank Bowie in the same way- early/mid 80s Bowie did nothing for me- nor did 80s Dylan- but 60s and 70s Dylan/Bowie had a whole lot happening for me-
Could it be that Zappa might come into his own at some point, with the ability of selective digital individual track selection - that his greatest, most respected, most influential body of work, could be compiled in one place- the accessibility of Zappa is his greatest flaw- he may well have a body of work that surpasses that of the Beatles- but someone has yet to assemble this in one place- in the meantime, we have 80 albums to trawl through, with very little guidance as to what we will find there, so most people don't bother.

thenakedanddead

Granted, your argument has some basis in fact. But if you're going to be a fine musician, which Zappa was, surely some inconsistency and unwarranted chances are necessary. The Beatles had "The White Album", which certainly does not remove their greatness. Bob had "Blonde on Blonde" - there goes my head. The issue which I think provides the most prevalent argument for Zappa victory is innovation, which was manifested throughout his career. The Beatles, granted, had some very innovative moments, but they were still largely proprietors of the catchy, pop-song format.

Your "coming into his own" comment implies he's something of a now-and-again guy. But that serves to imply that The Grateful came into their own with things like "Friend of the Devil" and "Rag Mama Rag". The difference is that the grateful dead did get lucky, but they were mostly ****. Zappa, by contrast, has a quantity of songs which qualifies against his lesser output.

Cicero

....the Beatles have "Catchy pop songs"....maybe today 40 years on...after countless bands and artists imitated them....that their music appears somewhat "of another era"..but what about when they were first released- at the time, they moved pop music forward to new horizons with each and every new album release- "pop" was the Beatles genre of music- I don't think they can be blamed for that, but they contributed to, influenced and developed that genre.
Here's Zappa doing something "experimental"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B89pSO5F-kg

Here's the Mahavishnu Orchestra doing something "experimental" so much better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtSIEkPqVgk

Ok...that's me for tonight:)

thenakedanddead

The Beatles were terrific and I admire the work they did. My premise for the "pop" comment was to indicate the extent of the boundaries Zappa pushed.

thenakedanddead

Next battle:

Warren Zevon vs Bruce Springsteen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bHp8-KI9Y

I think Bruce is a better person than Warren was, but when it comes to being a musician and an artist, then Warren, no contest.

Cicero

We've done Springsteen already, and the next pairing isn't due until tomorrow night after 7pm.

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

We've done Springsteen already, and the next pairing isn't due until tomorrow night after 7pm.

Ok, Yeah we've done Springsteen. Zappa-Beatles has been going on for two days and frankly, selfish as it sounds, I am genuinely interested in what arguments people will provide (if any) for this round.

Cicero

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Ok, Yeah we've done Springsteen. Zappa-Beatles has been going on for two days and frankly, selfish as it sounds, I am genuinely interested in what arguments people will provide (if any) for this round.

....and the fact that you lost the last battle.