Neil Young or Bob Dylan

[Chicago Sandy]

Both as far as songwriting (though both Dylan's later stuff is getting boring, some of the lyrics in "Hurricane" forced and pretentious; OTOH, "Greendale"--except for the song "Bandit"--is utterly cringeworthy). But I've always enjoyed Young's concerts, both solo acoustic and band, a lot more. Dylan is the better guitarist, though--a master of the use of the capo earlier than almost anyone else in the business. And he is a weirdly entertaining DJ with surprisingly eclectic tastes.

[valleyguy]

Originally Posted by TBman

That's one thing I miss, getting together with a few friends, with a few beers and playing until our fingers were numb.

If you're ever in L.A., let me know, I'll supply the beers and guitars, we can play Neil's songs till the cows come home.

My vote, Neil. I only liked Dylan songs that other people covered, except for a few exceptions.

[g6120]

I read someone distill it down to Bob Dylan writes about what is going on around him and Neil Young writes about what is going on inside him. I think that's generally true, however given the choice I much prefer Neil Young ove Bob Dylan. Here's an interesting list of the top 10 reasons why neil Young is better than Bob Dylan (not saying I agree, just found it provocative reading):

http://www.eighttrackmind.net/words/...ob-dylan.shtml

[Chicago Sandy]

OK, I'll give you that Young practically invented grunge guitar and that Dylan's electric playing is a snooze. But Young is responsible for some truly awful electric solos ("Sentimental Hygiene" is an example) and when not in open tunings is not as good an acoustic player as Dylan. As to covering either one's songs, Prelude's version of "After the Gold Rush" still gives me chills (not even Emmylou/Linda/Dolly can match it though they come close). Could be that Young's songs are so personal to him--and don't work as well with conventionally "good" voices--that Dylan gets covered more effectively.

Still, IMHO it's Young by a narrow margin.