In regards to those who think Dylan can't sing, I find myself paying attention to the lyrics while listening to Dylan more than any artist, simply because it's such a centerpiece to the songs. His voice is perfect for his lyrics, because his voice allows you to concentrate on his lyrics, and soak in the brilliance.

Desire is a beautiful album...every song is a testament to his style.

Again though, aren't we talking about American artists? I don't think the fact that John Lennon lived in the Dakota makes him an American songwriter and musician. :p [/b][/quote]Which is why I didn't include him in my first post, but then I saw people we including him, so I added him. Read it all before ya reply. Kthx.

People, here is the beauty of rock music; Your voice can sound like a dairy-goat being raped, beaten, or killed, and it doesn't matter. If you ask me, Lennon, Dylon, Cobain, and Young (to name a few) are horrible singers in the "traditional" sense. But, this isn't opera or show tunes. It's rock and roll, and what matters is the passion.

Their voices match their music, and compliment it. A few rough edges (without being a complete disaster) will only give their music character.

Again though, aren't we talking about American artists? I don't think the fact that John Lennon lived in the Dakota makes him an American songwriter and musician. :p [/b][/quote]Which is why I didn't include him in my first post, but then I saw people we including him, so I added him. Read it all before ya reply. Kthx. [/b][/quote]Two wrongs don't make a right (Doobie Brothers), so just because someone mentioned a very-British John Lennon in a thread about American musicians doesn't make it correct, nor does it mean I didn't read the thread (which I did).

BTW -

Seems like Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix should be in there somewhere.

I think this is just a hard thing to answer without considering our personal tastes/opinions, as opposed to considering whatever factors we use (influence, stamina, public appeal, talent, etc, if this is criteria to judge).

Say there is an entertainer that you just don't like, never have, and can't see how anyone considers them talented, yet the seem to fit whatever criteria you are using, should that person be considered?

For instance, say we are talking about the "Holy Trinity" of soul music. I'm probably gonna get bashed for this, but I have never liked Aretha Franklin, and would not include her on "my" list. Yet, she's been around forever, and to many is one of the best an perhaps has met some of the criteria.

In other words, does personal taste override accomplishments, influence and all the other factors we consider?

TIS

Not like Aretha Franklin?? TIS, I AM shocked!! What's up with that? Not "Think"? Not "Respect"? Wow!

Just kidding! Like you said, it's all so subjective, how can you possibly pick?

Yea, what can I say? I don't "mind""Respect" or "Natural Woman", but that's about it. If I'm driving in my car and one of her songs comes on, I find myself turning the station. :p Go figure!!!


TIS

I don't know if he should be part of the Hoy Trinity. If it was a Holy Octoty he would definitly be there, but Mr. Springsteen is far from a blow hole.

He is a important part of the fabric of American Rock and Roll and his influence is important and manifest itself everywhere. He could rest on just the acomplishment of Born to Run which is a tremendous top ten album. They don't make em or write em laike that any more. Springsteen in the seventies made Rock and Roll fun again. At a time when you had the rebbelious punks on the left and the snobbish album Oriented Rock Gods on the right. Springsteen made it fun to shout and have a good time at a show.

Next time you go to a show and the artist does more than one encore. Thank Springsteen because he set the bar for a live show so high, it made other artist work that much harder.

From 1978-1984 no live act could touch the energy level of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band

Not that I want to get into a habit of agreeing with anything Don Smitty says, but the three artists he listed are vital to the fabric of American rock music. I recall a 1998 VH-1 special that used the same phrase Smitty referenced.

Elvis was vital to the beginning of rock-n-roll in the 50's, Dylan in the 60's and 70's, and Springsteen in the 70's, 80's, and today. Each artist is flawed. Elvis didn't write a lot of his material but he had a dynamic voice and a great stage presence. Dylan and Springsteen are not the best vocalists or guitar players. However they are two of the best songwriters ever. Dylan released a number of influential albums, from Highway 61, Blood on the Tracks, Bringing It All Back Home, John Wesley Harding to name a few.

Springsteen's contributions have been equally important: Born to Run, Darkness on the Edge of Town, Nebraska, Born in the USA, and The Rising. And I would challenge that Springsteen is a better live performer, today at age 56, than 95% of his competitors in the music industry. And from 1975-1988, Springsteen was second-to-none in terms of energy, giving every show 110%, and delivering a 3 hour-plus set every night. His shows would vary greatly from night to night, incorporating classic and rare covers, along with unreleased and original material.

Are these 3 the best artists ever? Probably not. But they certainly form the nucleus of what is great about rock music.

As much as I like Springsteen, I think Robert Smith was a better lyricist in the 80's. Hell, I don't even think he's the best of the 70's.

I would have to disagree, Springsteen is an incredible song writer and his first four albums are classics. He reveals himself to his audience.

Having the pleasure of seeing both artist in their hay day. Springsteen in the early eighties and Robert Smith's version of The Cure in the mid eighties, let me tell you Mr. Smith would have a major coronary if he had half the energy that Springsteen had at a live show.

I'm not really discussing energy. I'm discussing the music. Keep in mind I'm not bashing Springsteen at all.

Ramones, Dead Kennedys and Pixies.