Happy 80th Birthday, Bob Dylan!

[Edouble]

But yes, a transformative figure, as important in his own way, IMO, as the Beatles, the Stones, Springsteen or anybody else.

That said, when I pull out a Dylan album, which is pretty often, I tend to ignore the Sinatra tributes.

Bruce is great, but I don't see how he is grouped in among The Beatles, The Stones, and Dylan.

[dudog84]

It took all my courage just to speak to him. If cell phones had existed then, I'm pretty sure I would not have asked for a selfie.

Unfortunately, I sometimes wonder if I would be a different 22-year-old now than I was then (I'm just a few years behind ya). Outside of the end of child labor (possibly, since not all children labored), the computer/internet/social media revolution has been more transformative on youth than (I believe) any other change in history.

[OldPhiKap]

Unfortunately, I sometimes wonder if I would be a different 22-year-old now than I was then (I'm just a few years behind ya). Outside of the end of child labor (possibly, since not all children labored), the computer/internet/social media revolution has been more transformative on youth than (I believe) any other change in history.

You were so much older then, you’re younger than that now.

[jimsumner]

Bruce is great, but I don't see how he is grouped in among The Beatles, The Stones, and Dylan.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Edouble]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The experts (musicians, writers, and industry figures) see it my way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollin...0Ray%20Charles.

Bruce (23) is just not not as "transformative" as Beatles (1), Stones (4), and Dylan (2) were. Perhaps personally to you, but in the canon of rock, you'd be hard pressed to find a musicologist who would back your opinion.

Or alternatively

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollin...rs_of_All_Time

Dylan (1)
Lennon (2)
McCartney (3)
Stones (6)
Springsteen (N/A)

[Phredd3]

But yes, a transformative figure, as important in his own way, IMO, as the Beatles, the Stones, Springsteen or anybody else.

Bruce is great, but I don't see how he is grouped in among The Beatles, The Stones, and Dylan.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't really have a passion either way, so this is an honest question, not a challenge: In what way is Springsteen transformative? He may be great, YMMV. But is he actually transformative? What's his legacy?

[dudog84]

I don't really have a passion either way, so this is an honest question, not a challenge: In what way is Springsteen transformative? He may be great, YMMV. But is he actually transformative? What's his legacy?

He saved Rock'n'Roll from Disco?

[Skydog]

Bruce is great, but I don't see how he is grouped in among The Beatles, The Stones, and Dylan.

I'm with you. IMO Dylan and The Beatles altered the history of rock and roll and The Stones were one of the greatest bands of all time.

Now I've loved Bruce since seeing him and the E-Street Band in the 70's, when they were just starting out. And I think Springsteen is one of the great creative geniuses of rock and an obvious Hall of Famer, but there are a few of those. Also I get it - if you are of a certain age and born on the East Coast then Bruce is your man.

But imo Dylan, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones had a larger and deeper footprint - they were world wide, multi-generational superstars who changed the very nature of rock and roll.

But YMMV.

[jimsumner]

Elvis, The Beatles and Dylan are the three most transformative acts in rock history. No argument from me. But Springsteen came along at a time when rock was suffocating in disco, bloated prog-rock and by-the-numbers concerts. He helped bring rock back to the basics. If nothing else he deserves credit for being arguably the best live act in rock history.


And, as an aside he did a great version of Dylan's I Want You in concert in the early part of his career.

And as an aside, part 2, I'm old enough to have seen Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was 13 when The Beatles first appeared with Ed. I bought Satisfaction on 45, bought Like A Rolling Stone on 45 when it was divided up into two 3-minute sides. I was buying Dylan bootlegs in the early 1970s. Anybody who thinks I'm going to be impressed by a Wiki link is seriously wasting their time.

[tommy]

I say this as a big Rolling Stones fan, and taking the Beatles out of the discussion because their artistry and influence are so obvious, so if you're looking at these four (Beatles, Stones, Dylan, and Bruce) in terms of their chronicling of the culture of the times in which they lived, but moreso than that the insights they delivered lyrically into the human experience and their ability to draw forth a range of emotional responses to their words, I think it's the Stones that don't belong in the conversation with the Beatles and Dylan, and Bruce that does.

The Stones had their moments of lyrical inspiration, but that was not their bread and butter in nearly the same way that it has been for Dylan and Bruce and the Beatles.

[rthomas]

Elvis, The Beatles and Dylan are the three most transformative acts in rock history. No argument from me. But Springsteen came along at a time when rock was suffocating in disco, bloated prog-rock and by-the-numbers concerts. He helped bring rock back to the basics. If nothing else he deserves credit for being arguably the best live act in rock history.


And, as an aside he did a great version of Dylan's I Want You in concert in the early part of his career.

And as an aside, part 2, I'm old enough to have seen Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was 13 when The Beatles first appeared with Ed. I bought Satisfaction on 45, bought Like A Rolling Stone on 45 when it was divided up into two 3-minute sides. I was buying Dylan bootlegs in the early 1970s. Anybody who thinks I'm going to be impressed by a Wiki link is seriously wasting their time.

I was not a big Springsteen fan until I listened to Obama and Springsteen chatting about life on their podcast (Renegades).

[Skydog]

I say this as a big Rolling Stones fan, and taking the Beatles out of the discussion because their artistry and influence are so obvious, so if you're looking at these four (Beatles, Stones, Dylan, and Bruce) in terms of their chronicling of the culture of the times in which they lived, but moreso than that the insights they delivered lyrically into the human experience and their ability to draw forth a range of emotional responses to their words, I think it's the Stones that don't belong in the conversation with the Beatles and Dylan, and Bruce that does.

The Stones had their moments of lyrical inspiration, but that was not their bread and butter in nearly the same way that it has been for Dylan and Bruce and the Beatles.

Agree. The Stones captured the human spirit but in a different way, not with the poetic writing of the others.

IMO the order of great rock lyricists is:
1. Bob Dylan
…
…
…
…
2. Everybody else.

[dudog84]

Agree. The Stones captured the human spirit but in a different way, not with the poetic writing of the others.

IMO the order of great rock lyricists is:
1. Bob Dylan
…
…
…
…
2. Everybody else.

The Nobel committee agrees with you.

[Skydog]

The Nobel committee agrees with you.

I completely forgot ! Big honor, that.

[chris13]

Agree. The Stones captured the human spirit but in a different way, not with the poetic writing of the others.

IMO the order of great rock lyricists is:
1. Bob Dylan
…
…
…
…
2. Everybody else.

Joni Mitchell is closer to Bob than this list indicates. And she dusts Bob when it comes to singing and playing guitar.

[jimsumner]

I'm a boomer and grew up with the British Invasion, the West Coast Hippies, the Singer-Songwriters and love/loved them all. I mentioned Elvis earlier and his artistic peak years were a little before my time. But if we're discussing transformative figures in rock history, he has to be on the short list.

Yes, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and other of his contemporaries wrote their own songs and Elvis didn't. But Elvis is practically a textbook definition of a transformative figure.

Ands I think Dylan would agree.

[Edouble]

Joni Mitchell is closer to Bob than this list indicates. And she dusts Bob when it comes to singing and playing guitar.

Plus one to this. Hejira, start to finish, is better than any Dylan album, for my money.

[Edouble]

Elvis, The Beatles and Dylan are the three most transformative acts in rock history. No argument from me. But Springsteen came along at a time when rock was suffocating in disco, bloated prog-rock and by-the-numbers concerts. He helped bring rock back to the basics. If nothing else he deserves credit for being arguably the best live act in rock history.

Tough to top Hendrix, and after that Rage Against The Machine. RATM is so damn good, Springsteen poached their guitarist to upgrade his own live act.

And as an aside, part 2, I'm old enough to have seen Elvis on the Ed Sullivan Show. I was 13 when The Beatles first appeared with Ed. I bought Satisfaction on 45, bought Like A Rolling Stone on 45 when it was divided up into two 3-minute sides. I was buying Dylan bootlegs in the early 1970s. Anybody who thinks I'm going to be impressed by a Wiki link is seriously wasting their time.

Links to Rolling Stone magazine's Greatest 100 Rock Acts and Greatest 100 Singer Songwriters. Hardly Wiki fodder and (as you know) not meant to impress, but to share the consensus of the "experts".

[Skydog]

Joni Mitchell is closer to Bob than this list indicates. And she dusts Bob when it comes to singing and playing guitar.

I love Joni and she is 10x the singer than Bob. But imo Bob's lyrics, well most of them, were just great poetry. He could create an incredibly rich mood, a feeling, a picture with just a few words in a way not many in this world can. As always, imo.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Agree. The Stones captured the human spirit but in a different way, not with the poetic writing of the others.

IMO the order of great rock lyricists is:
1. Bob Dylan
…
…
…
…
2. Everybody else.

Leonard Cohen would like to have a word.