5 ms·
the difference in quality would be only the music itself, and nothing to do with lyrics/literature, about which I'd bet you are correct (I wouldn't know). Cole
by was8309 11y ago
the difference in quality would be only the music itself, and nothing to do with lyrics/literature, about which I'd bet you are correct (I wouldn't know). Cole was a great jazz pianist that was raised and trained and in the African American Jazz tradition before he 'crossed over', much like George Benson did decades later. It would be a mistake to think either were limited to 'light' entertainment.
So while Cole may or not have played with Mingus or Billy Holiday, he certainly could have. Not so with Dylan.
Even the most seemingly inane songs from that era were more sophisticated - musically - than anything from Dylan, et al. I think this applies : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9394176 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9394176
p.s. sorry, don't mean to rip on Dylan. If you like it, enjoy!
- coldtea 11y ago>the difference in quality would be only the music itself That's the technical side of music though -- not so the much the music as cultural significance / art, in which one could argue Dylan might be not just on par with Cole but probably much ahead. Even if he could play with Mingus, many did, but only the very best of them we count as significant in general (Powell, Byard). I mean we wouldn't count Cole as among the top, but rather players like Tatum, Peterson, Monk etc. If we judged only sophistication in the sense of chord changes, complex harmony, orchestration and such, then any half-decent conservatory graduate could be said to be better than lots of titans of song, not just Dylan but people like Lead Belly and co. I, for example, would still consider Robert Johnson a better artist (more artistically significant) than, say, Steve Vai or Al Di Meola, even if those two can obviously play circles around him. And I think they'd might agree too.