GOAT music debate stuff

[Dylan Waco]

I'm totally opposite of my views on wrestling in my views on music, where I am blissfully dense and possibly a little shallow. Synthesizers are more interesting than "real" instruments. Bob Dylan is boring. Can we talk about New Order?

I would rather listen to Swans, Amps For Christ, Moss Icon, Karate and any other number of random bands that the average person probably doesn't know. I think Shotmaker's Mouse Ear Forget Me Not is the best album I've ever heard. I think Lucero is easily the best band of the last fifteen years.

 

Not all of that is obscure (although most of my favorites are) and I like a lot of pop music, but generally I don't care about listening to pop standards. The exception is Motown.

 

But I do enjoy New Order

[goodhelmet]

I was named after Bob Dylan, but I like Phil Ochs better as a songwriter from that era.

 

I will not discuss The Beatles as I don't want Will to have a stroke.

I just want to make sure that jdw doesn't compare himself to the Beatles again or I might have that stroke.

[jpchicago23]

Because BIG doesn't have the ammo to go up against Dylan that's why. The best you can hope for in hip-hop, is to take the entire output of the Wu-Tang Clan and put that against Dylan, and even then it's not really a conversation.

 

I am the wrong person to try to argue this with since I'm one of the biggest hip-hop fans going. There is no Dylan of hip-hop yet. There may be in time.

 

I will not discuss music anymore because I believe it's against the rules to go this off topic.

 

EDIT: Robert Johnson recorded 31 songs, total. He's not in contention.

 

So since you're o.e of the biggest fans that means your opinion is what matters? I happen to be a huge hip hop fan but I wouldn't gloat that my opinion isnt to be argued with. I mean do you really think big doesn't have the ammo? Seriously? Cmon bro get real he's top ten easy and had no where bear the volume of material as his peers who also claim him top 5 dead or alive. Big mixed street vibes with story telling and serious word play as well as one of the best deliveries of all time. What else would you need from hip hop? Nas is my personal favorite and I can argue the same for him but I would only say he has longevity on big and that's about it

[JerryvonKramer]

BIG made 2 albums in his career. Two.

 

Let's say Ready to Die is as good as The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan.

 

Let's say Life After Death, being a double album, is as good as Blonde on Blonde. Let's just say that.

 

Highway 61 Revisited. What as Biggie got now? That remix album with the Duran Duran sample? ("Born Again") No, I'm being serious here. What's he got now?

 

Bringing It All Back Home - what now? Junior MAFIA?

 

John Wesley Harding -errr, guest appearances on No Way Out?

 

Blood on the Tracks - and now? the 4th remix of All About the Benjamins?

 

Street Legal - errrr ghost writing for Foxy Brown?

 

Desire - the Tupac diss?

 

Nashville Skyline - Craig Mack remix?

 

Oh Mercy

 

Time Out of Mind

 

Love and Theft

 

Modern Times

 

Bootleg Series 1-3

 

Basement Tapes

 

Another Side of ...

 

Do you not see the total absurdity of trying to make a Dylan vs. BIG comparison? It can't be done. It just can't.

[jpchicago23]

I wasn't making the comparison but to rely on quantity is pretty Fucking absurd as well. So what if he made two albums their two of the best hip hop albums of all time. Two. I don't know shit about bob Dylan so I song argue against him bit just because he puts out a ton of albums doesn't mean they're all great. Jay z is a perfect example

[JerryvonKramer]

They really aren't though. Ready to Die is good, but Life After Death isn't all that. It's patchy. The Source probably only gave it 5 Mics because of timing.

 

There's nothing groundbreaking on either of them. Ready to Die is a solid, very tight gangster rap album. It isn't Liquid Swords. It isn't Return to 36 Chambers. It isn't It Takes a Nation. It isn't Straight Outta Compton.

 

Arguably it is a top 10 all-time hip-hop album. You want to say that making one all-time great hip-hop album is enough to get you into a GOAT conversation? That's your argument here?

[JerryvonKramer]

You know, let's just forget this. It's not worth it.

[Death From Above]

Charles Mingus is way better than John Coltrane.

[jpchicago23]

That's merely you're opinion. Doesn't make it true. To me they're both classic as is liquid swords and 36 is my second favorite al um ever. Why do they have to be compared though? Saying its not as good as 36 doesn't make it any less of an album. Not everything u like is going to be agreed upon you don't have to bust vessels over it

[Death From Above]

Also, Americans obsession with turning music discussions into a race baiting contest is seriously fucking sad.

[jpchicago23]

Care to elaborate? You pretty much just outed a while country with no back up.

[ohtani's jacket]

What do you mean you're one of the biggest fans going? One of the biggest fans on this board? One of the biggest fans born in Wales? I don't get it. I'm sure there are several of us here with large hip-hop collections. Most hip hop acts make one great album, usually their debut album, then struggle to replicate its success thereafter. Some go on a three or four album tear like Boogie Down Productions, EPMD, Kool G Rap and DJ Polo, Big Daddy Kane, Ice Cube, Gang Starr, Scarface, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul and whoever else I'm forgetting, but why are albums the metric? Bob Dylan can't sing very well and isn't an amazing guitar player. What you're left with is his songwriting. Is it not possible that there's an MC with better flow than Dylan's singing and (shock horror) better lyrics? I happen to think there's a lot of hip hop beat that are far more killer than freewheelin' Bob Dylan, that's for sure.

 

You never said that Dylan was your choice for the GOAT. You said it was an open and shut case. I think it's great that after discovering everything there is to know about everything you came to the conclusion that nobody can touch Dylan. You say you don't want to talk about Dylan but you keep making the Beatles/Dylan analogies.

 

I also think you're shitting on jazz. Whether you like jazz or not there are at least twelve major jazz artists who are comparable to Bob Dylan in terms of importance and output. I don't own a single Beatles album or Dylan album. I'd rather listen to the Kinks than the Beatles and I'd rather listen to Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Johnny Cash, Merle Haggard, David Allen Coe and other country artists than Dylan, but GOAT doesn't mean shit if you exclude styles you don't like.

 

I loved your film nerdery comment too. If there's one thing I've learnt it's that there's always someone who knows more about something than you do. Let's not blow our own horns too much.

[BrickHithouse]

I do not believe I have ever heard a Bob Dylan song - or if I have I didn't know it was Bob Dylan.

 

Who is the musical equivalent to "I've never seen a Ric Flair match?"

 

Michael Jackson?

 

Led Zeppelin?

[JerryvonKramer]

I loved your film nerdery comment too. If there's one thing I've learnt it's that there's always someone who knows more about something than you do. Let's not blow our own horns too much.

Is it blowing your horn to say you are a big geek/nerd/whatever of something? I don't know.

 

There's always someone who knows more, for sure.

 

I like The Kinks too.

[S.L.L.]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I don't think there's any argument at all to put Charles, Brown, Crosby or Armstrong (or indeed Sinatra) in the same conversation as Dylan or the Beatles.

The Beatles were together for less than a decade.

 

It was a hell of a less than a decade. It was still less than a decade.

 

I have no problem accepting The Beatles as GOAT types, because I do believe they were just that good, but....

 

BIG made 2 albums in his career. Two.

...if you're treating longevity as an issue, surely the fact The Beatles really only had a six-year run as a GOAT-level band must open up room for longer-running acts with strong outputs to at least contend.

 

In fact, that's exactly what Dylan did. Dylan never had a concentrated run as strong as The Beatles' '64-'69. He reached those peaks at times, but outside of the one-two-three punch of Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, and Blonde on Blonde, no Beatles-level runs for him. I guess you could give him a '63-'69 peak, a '74-'76 comeback peak, and a few late-career albums like Love and Theft and Modern Times that hold up to some of his better (though not his best) works.

 

Are those unmatchable in music history? Hell, forget comparing them to acts from other eras and genres. Are those unmatchable even just within the realm of 60's pop and rock?

 

The Rolling Stones had a '64-'72 Dylan-level run that hit Beatles-level peaks in '68-'72. Outside of Some Girls, they never did anything after that on that level, but I don't think their record looks out of place next to Beatles/Dylan.

 

Led Zeppelin had a Beatles-level peak from '69-'75. It's tempered by the fact that they released nothing in '72 or '74, but even excising those years, it's a run that doesn't look out of place next to Beatles/Dylan.

 

Neil Young had a '69-'75 Dylan-level run, hitting short Beatles-level peaks on the front and back end of that, and had some really strong post-peak stuff like Rust Never Sleeps/Live Rust and Ragged Glory. Not out of place with Beatles/Dylan.

 

That's three more acts on that level, and I didn't even look outside of pop/rockers who hit their stride in the 60's. They're not even controversial picks. I really wanted to make a case for The Kinks. I think they peaked really high, but it was too short, and their pre- and post-peak stuff was too scattershot for me to do it. But the Stones, Zep, and Young all feel like pretty safe GOAT-level picks that most wouldn't really argue. And yeah, you could argue that the Beatles and Dylan are still better. That's fair. I'd certainly agree the Beatles are the cream of that crop. Dylan I'm less sure about. I'd probably have him below the Stones but above Zep and Neil. I could see the argument for him as #2 on the depth chart, though. Point is, even if you have Beatles/Dylan ahead of Stones/Zep/Young, I don't buy that they're so far ahead that Stones/Zep/Young shouldn't even be considered GOATCs. And again, that's just pop and rock acts of the 60's. Imagine what we find if we actually open our minds a little and start looking at different genres and eras.

[ohtani's jacket]

I loved your film nerdery comment too. If there's one thing I've learnt it's that there's always someone who knows more about something than you do. Let's not blow our own horns too much.

Is it blowing your horn to say you are a big geek/nerd/whatever of something? I don't know.

 

There's always someone who knows more, for sure.

 

I like The Kinks too.

 

If you're using it as a defence for making contentious statements, I think it is. I'm sure you didn't mean much by it, but there's plenty of people here at this site who are heavily into movies and music. I don't think anywhere here is special in that regard. They won't say so, but there's a few people who posted in this thread who really know their stuff. Don't know that any of us really compare with Dylan, though. Not unless there's someone else who can read a book, watch a movie, do a podcast and write a review at the same time. And he even finds time to watch some wrestling.

[El-P]

I'm not touching this thread with a ten foot pole...

[JerryvonKramer]

This is a little beside the point, but can Dylan really be engaged with the movie if he's doing two other things at the same time? I mean really engaged with it, emotionally engaged. I struggle to think so. I am happy to assume that everyone here is at the same levels as me when it comes to discussing these things. I was simply trying to get over the idea that these aren't lazy opinions I've just come up with on the spot and that maybe I've been down this road before about 100 a times or more. "I been down this road before, Senor".

 

@ SLL - I've said repeatedly in this thread that I don't want to have the argument so it's no use making long posts. My feeling is that Young, Led Zep, Stones are all tier 2 along with Bowie and a few other people. I have reasons for that. You can disagree, my feeling is that only two acts are in the conversation. I've also said that I consider Dylan an almost Shakespeare-level artist. To justify why I think this would require more words than anyone wants to read. And I'm not willing to put that much effort in when someone is just going to write "oh he can't sing" (another bugbear which is along the lines of "wrestling is fake" as a point) or "oh I'd rather listen to Animal Collective" after it. It's not worth it. It's not worth trying to convince anyone else of the same view. I've said this 6 times now already.

[JerryvonKramer]

I also want to address the "Biggie only had 2 albums" talking point. As I said, I only consider one of those "great".

 

The Zombies have one knockout album (Odyssey and Oracle) that I would consider to be "Beatles level". So does David Ackles (American Gothic), so does Harry Nilsson (Aerial Ballet), so does Randy Newman (Sail Away, arguably Good Old Boys too), so do quite a few other acts.

 

Are we going to say The Zombies are on par with The Beatles on the strength of that one album? Do we put them in the "tier 2" conversation with Neil Young and David Bowie? Hardly seems fair. Kate Bush has 4 albums on that level, I don't see anyone pushing her case for GOAT.

 

I don't see why BIG should get a pass and I'd probably argue that Ready to Die is not as good as the albums I've just named. From hip-hop I'd say maybe Liquid Swords is.

 

There is this also phenomena to consider:

 

Most hip hop acts make one great album, usually their debut album, then struggle to replicate its success thereafter.

But then as OJ goes on to say:

 

Some go on a three or four album tear like Boogie Down Productions, EPMD, Kool G Rap and DJ Polo, Big Daddy Kane, Ice Cube, Gang Starr, Scarface, A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul and whoever else I'm forgetting.

So when you are talking GOAT, I don't see how someone with 2 albums, only one of which is really great is going to get into the conversation.

 

If that is your bar, your conversation has about 1000 artists in it.

[Loss]

It seems like people are being a little too tough on Jerry. He has praised quite a few artists of different genres in this thread. He just has his pick of who he thinks is a cut above the rest, which we likely all have. I don't see him writing off hip hop or jazz as much as I just see him explaining where he's coming from. I don't agree with his opinion necessarily, but just because he has an "obvious" answer doesn't mean he came to that conclusion in an obvious way.

[Eduardo]

I was going to make a lengthy tongue-in-cheek post about how José Alfredo Jiménez, and his prolific and influential songwriting compares to Bob Dylan but I couldn't phrase it right.

[ohtani's jacket]

I still don't get why albums are the metric. The Zombies' singles weren't commercially successful which denied them the opportunity to record LPs. Does that mean their singles don't rub shoulders with the Beatles or the Beach Boys?

 

But if we're talking albums, a quick look at All Music Guide reveals:

 

Bob Dylan -- 9 five star albums

Miles Davis -- 18 five star albums

 

Now there, that was no contest.

[MJH]

Oh, shit, what the fuck have I started?

 

OK, a rephrasing: on any Popular music (that is stuff that doesn't have it's own section in an average record store, be it classical, jazz, country, folk, whatever - if someone was to say Miles > Bob I have no problem with that whatsoever) list of "greatest artists", The Beatles and Dylan are the de facto #1 and 2, usually with the former first but Bob might get the odd nod, with the Stones generally taking the third spot. As automatically as a figures-in-literature list would start with Shakespeare, and to put even, say, Homer on there ahead of him would be to court controversy.

[JerryvonKramer]

OJ - Albums are not the only metric, but they are a strong metric.

 

Allmusic didn't give Desire, Street Legal, Slow Train, Time Out of Mind, Love and Theft or Modern Times, 5 stars when many many publications did, but then they did give Nashville Skyline 5 stars which it doesn't always get.

 

Jazz is not something I can pretend to understand. I don't understand it. It feels like a totally different ball game to me.

 

I have said since day 1 that if someone wants to argue for Miles Davis, I would not object to him being in the conversation. It's the equivalent of someone arguing for a Lucha star when you haven't enjoyed the Lucha you've been exposed to and you haven't sought out a lot more of it. But I accept that Miles Davis is pimped on that level, that those who know a lot about jazz pimp him on that level, so I don't object to it.

 

When it comes to a lot of the other non-jazz acts mentioned I've rated and assessed them all in time and come to my conclusion. I'm happy to discuss how we go about rating these things. Even happy to discuss other acts and their pro and cons. I don't want to discuss the Dylan GOAT case itself or why I consider him as #1. Simple reason being that I really don't enjoy it. It's as bad for me, as talking to non-wrestling fans about wrestling or nails on a chalk board. I find it actively painful.

[El-P]

Since when Allmusic's ratings mean anything whatsoever ? I mean, seriously people. And arguing about metrics in art, even popular art, seems totally irrelevant to me. As does GOAT discussion on the matter, really.