The Quietus - A new rock music and pop culture website

Black Sky Thinking

Dylan vs. Cohen
Luke Turner, July 10th, 2008 11:20

With Leonard Cohen's current unexpected tour astounding audiences across the world, Luke Turner asks if it is time to see him, rather than the "doggerel"-spouting Bob Dylan, as the finest poet of his generation?

Add your comment »

Leonard Cohen vs. Bob Dylan

Last Saturday morning, lying as usual in my pit listening to Radio 4, my somnambulant ears twitched to an unusual assailant, neither the thunder of the Heathrow flight path nor the thwacking of Battersea Heliport. Bob Dylan had broken into my transistor to interrupt my reverie; that perfidious harmonica, that wheedling voice, those hamfisted bashes at the acoustic guitar. I groaned into the pillow at the prospect of yet another Radio 4 show (these days the station resembles Uncut magazine on the airwaves, but without the visual panache) on Dylan, and tried to let a sore head block it out. But rather than the usual hagiography, this was supposedly a rebuttal explaining why the great sacred cowboy hat of the 20th century canon isn’t actually all that much cop.

The problem was that presenter Lenny Henry went running to the usual suspect: Paul Morley yet again leading ill-informed Times readers onto the rocks of sonic iniquity like a wrecker hijacking a musical shipping forecast. Unfortunately, Henry made the common mistake among Dylan dissenters, and only found fault with that anaemic, caterwauling voice, which Morley instantly picked up on. This is a red herring, friends. Given the constraints of space and time, I shall leave it to the eminent Germaine Greer to give the academic explanation of why it is the “doggerel” of his lyricism that is Dylan’s greatest flaw. Or, as Eric Hobswam more kindly said, Dylan is “a potential major poet too idle or self-absorbed to keep the muse’s attention for than two or three lines at a time”.

It’s always amazed me that Dylan’s streams of consciousness have so captured the imagination of the post-sixties generations. It’s been too easy, for a start: contemporary lauding in all the right places and a ‘controversial’ change of direction does for easily mythologizing make, discipleship and calls of "Judas" nicely fitting into the trope of rock & roll as the post war, secular messianic belief system expounded by the newly frocked media priesthood.

For to me, Dylan has always paled into insignificance compared to his contemporary Leonard Cohen. A poet before he became a reluctant musician, Cohen possessed an uncomfortable and humble voice that found itself over simple acoustic guitar. This simplicity is what liberated his brilliant words. Then, in 1988’s I’m Your Man and 1992’s The Future he painted a prescient of a search for redemption in a valueless, corrupt society via a change in style that, oddly, didn’t offend his fanbase. Cohen’s voice was deeper and even more caustic after thousands of cigarettes, sitting over an almost incongruous backing of sax, ponderous synths and fruity backing singers. Unlike Dylan (a musician for conservative bores easily upset by change), Cohen made the move from acoustic to electric – indeed, digital - seamlessly, his universal appeal extant through the honesty of the work, his understanding of love, life, spirituality, history, his self-deprecation and all-too overlooked dry wit.

This has been none more evident than on the few dates Cohen has played of his current tour which, let us not forget, has happened not through a deal with a coffee shop, but because the shrivelled old cove got stiffed by his manager while he was up learning with the Buddhists of Mount Baldy.

I asked my friend how Leonard Cohen had been at Glastonbury. “I cried all the way through,” she said. “There’s something about that voice” Over on DiS someone wrote that Cohen alone would have been worth the steep ticket price. Another friend said that work had precluded her from catching but one song of Cohen’s set, but that was enough to open her ears to his brilliance. I saw Dylan at Glastonbury a few years ago, a tedious set where he wilfully and tunelessly trudged through the more obscure recesses of his back catalogue, knowing he could get away with it because of the reverence of the crowd at seeing a trademarked icon. The freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, hark as the registers ring. Does Dylan get covered by anyone from Bon Jovi to Nick Cave to Jarvis Cocker to Artery to the Jesus And Mary Chain to John Cale and Coil? No, he’s merely the voice ‘channelled’ by a thousand randy open mic night losers on the prowl for hippy chicks.

There’s a famous conversation piece where Cohen and Dylan discuss how long it takes them to write their lyrics; Cohen says it takes him month, Dylan, “about ten minutes”. As any poet, Cohen crafts his words, where Dylan throws them out, a Bob-a-job lackey to the rock'n'roll machine. Never mind that cowboy pastiche and “doggerel” via harmonica dentures, for it is Cohen, with a doff of his grey fedora and a thank you delivered in gravelly humility, who’s your man.


Michael Gray
Jul 10, 2008 1:55pm

"perfidious harmonica", crikey.

Agree totally, mind.

Reply to this Admin

jimmy james
Jul 11, 2008 8:39am

absolute rubbish. both fucking brilliant but bobby is the king in my eyes!

Reply to this Admin

dave dave
Jul 11, 2008 9:39am

Bollocks, beginning to end. The premise is arguable but you don't even have a crack - deferring to the 'eminent' Greer, whose own very short critique was weak and unsubstantiated, is a laughable cop-out. If you're trying to propose that Cohen is the superior poet to Dylan, why not at least try a few comparisons? Try and persuade us that one is better than another, instead of resorting to such baffling assertions as '[Dylan's]'s merely the voice channeled by a thousand randy open mic losers on the prowl for hippy chicks' or '[he is] a musician for conservative bores easily upset by change'. This is the kind of trite hyperbole that makes Morley sound like Ricks. How does this help you at all?

Reply to this Admin

David Vaughan
Jul 11, 2008 10:28am

I certainly prefer Cohen to Dylan but I don't know whether that's because Cohen's a better writer than Dylan or just because I can't stand Dylan's voice and delivery. Probably the latter. I do think 'Like A Rolling Stone' is just about the most overrated pile of rubbish in rock though.

Reply to this Admin

Lu
Jul 11, 2008 11:46am

Haha. I think Bob Dylan was probably lying about 10 minutes. If you watch Don't Look Back, you'll see he was one of the greatest piss-takers of all time, while Leonard Cohen was a ponderous, pretentious poet. I quite like Cohen, but I really don't think he is in the same league. Sure, Dylan is shit live these days, but that's neither here nor there. In his prime, he was the best songwriter of his generation. Even Hendrix worshipped the man - and I would trust Jimi on his music taste more than Germaine Greer, to be honest.

Reply to this Admin

Mat Snow
Jul 11, 2008 2:20pm

Dylan or Cohen: finest poet of his generation? Probably neither. I'd vote for Ted Hughes as the finest poet of the '60s-'90s. They're principally songwriters, a different though related breed. And also performers, their comparative recent talents in this respect seeming to form the basis of this blog's attempt at an argument.

Reply to this Admin

Jim Paterson
Jul 11, 2008 6:55pm

Maybe part of the problem is that both of them are being looked at as poets, rather than songwriters. I'm sure many poets who were contemporaries of them both (like Hughes) would feel slightly aggrieved they weren't being considered. Cohen edges it for me as a poet because he WAS one, before he started writing songs and reading him is much more rewarding and complete experience than reading Dylan lyrics. The article goes too far in ignoring Dylan's musical achievements though, ignoring both how far he came in the first five years of his recording career and his willingness to play with his own compositions live over the last few years, constantly reworking and exploring anew. Musically, Cohen has served his voice, whereas Dylan's effect is achieved of a piece - both making his musical impact so much the greater and explaining how his lyrics don't have the same impact on their own.

Reply to this Admin

fwwank wewiz
Jul 14, 2008 12:20am

there's no accounting for taste

Reply to this Admin

Olly Parker
Jul 14, 2008 10:48pm

Is your beef not more with the press and the Dylan acolytes than with the man himself? I think it's been pretty established that Dylan never really wanted to be seen as the "voice of his generation" or any of the other bollocks that's been projected on to him.

I agree that he's no poet. Got some great tunes though.

Reply to this Admin

Hugh Jardon
Jul 15, 2008 9:49pm

Bob Dylan is no Leonard Cohen.

Reply to this Admin

Tom Williams
Aug 2, 2008 11:27pm

what load of old bollocks.

i bloody love this website, i got told about it through being on DiS, really love it, loved the article too! just don't agree!

dylan's lyrics are great, but (not as importantly but still worth mentioning) the music is also, it' underated, not helped by his relentless humilty on the subject ('it's all blues sequences, or folk standards') always knocks me for six, for me 'there's something about the voice' could not be more relevant with dylan. all of them too! i'm talking shit but more importantly i love dylan more x

Reply to this Admin