Very true but it's not really a worthwhile comparison either though if we're honest (I was just saying that Dylan's a better lyricist and has written many better lyrics). Dylan's been touring non stop for decades, his shows don't have the sense of occassion Roger's do with him not touring often at all, also need to factor in that Dylan's voice is completely shot and his show's wouldn't have the allure of the grand visual spectacle which Roger's Wall shows have.Flathead wrote:kjek1 wrote: And I thought Roger touring an old album 40 years later was more to do with him being unable to come up with anything fresh than being a genius. Okay so that might not be completely fair but I thought it would be funny because we know if it were Gilmour and not Waters doing that, that's pretty much exactly what flathead would have said.
No. The point is that maybe, *maybe* Paul McCartney could tour just Abbey Road and become the highest grossing solo act of all time.
What The Wall's record-breaking run meant is that The Wall (and thus Water's 70's songwriting) really has no peer in terms of relevancy and longevity 40 years later.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a Wagnerian achievement for art to endure like this.
Dylan (as much as I love him) could not tour Blonde on Blonde or Blood on the Tracks and fill stadium after stadium.
As far as Shine On goes, Dave and Rick wrote the music, that's what I've always heard and it has their stamp all over it, they generally wrote the band's best musical pieces so I'd say it's a safe bet.